add_url_forward

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic action. It doesn't mention side effects, prerequisites (e.g., domain must be registered), whether existing forwards are overwritten, or what happens on success/failure. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but adds no context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient, earning its place by stating the core purpose without fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description is extremely sparse. It lacks information about return values, idempotency, domain validation, or propagation delays. For a mutating tool, this is incomplete and leaves the agent guessing about expected behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema provides 100% description coverage for all six parameters, so the description adds minimal semantic value. It hints at domain/subdomain but doesn't explain parameter relationships or clarify any ambiguity beyond what the schema already states. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Adds URL forwarding for a domain or subdomain' uses a specific verb ('Adds') and resource ('URL forwarding'), and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_url_forwarding and delete_url_forward. It is unambiguous and immediately conveys the tool's function.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description states the action but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The usage is implied by the name and action, but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned. For example, it doesn't say 'use this instead of edit_url_forward' or mention any prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.