Set domain redirect

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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: it states that a backup is created by default, which is important for a destructive operation (destructiveHint=true). It also mentions 'marked' blocks, implying a tracked/replaceable pattern. This supplements the annotation with useful operational detail without contradicting it.

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 two sentences long and front-loads the core action and backup behavior. Every word adds value; there is no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, 2 required) and lack of an output schema, the description provides enough context to understand the tool's core behavior. It does not mention return values, but the absence of an output schema lowers the expectation. The description covers the essential purpose and side effects, though it could mention the 'dry_run' capability or effect on existing redirects for full completeness.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with each parameter having a descriptive explanation. The description itself does not add semantic detail beyond saying 'creates a backup by default' which aligns with the backup parameter. Since the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly, this dimension meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Insert or update a marked .htaccess 301 redirect block for a configured source domain.' It specifies a concrete verb (insert/update), a resource (.htaccess redirect block), and a clear scope (for a configured source domain). It is distinct from sibling tools like write_file or replace_in_file by focusing specifically on redirect management.

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 implies usage for setting up 301 redirects via .htaccess, which is a clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives like write_file or replace_in_file, nor does it provide exclusion criteria. The guidance is implied but not explicit.

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