Redirecționează o adresă veche

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds the 301 status and the removal behavior when 'la' is empty, which is not covered by annotations. It doesn't contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral context beyond the structured data. The description implies state modification (creating/updating/removing redirects) consistent with the readOnlyHint=false.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and includes a condition and removal semantics. Every sentence carries meaningful information with no filler. The structure is efficient and easy to scan.

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?

For a simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core usage, the condition, and the removal behavior. It doesn't mention potential errors, limits, or permissions, but these are not critical for a redirect-setting tool and the annotations cover idempotency and safety. It is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly in most scenarios.

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% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that an empty or null 'la' removes the redirect, which is not fully explicit in the schema (though the schema does note it). It also gives examples in the schema, and the description reinforces the semantics. This goes beyond the schema's raw type definitions.

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 action: sending visitors from an old address to a new one with a 301 redirect. It gives concrete use cases (slug change, old site moved) and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'listeaza_redirectionari' by focusing on creation/update/removal rather than listing. The verb+resource are specific and unambiguous.

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?

It provides a clear condition: 'Se aplică doar când la adresa veche nu mai e nimic' (only when the old address has no content). It also explains the removal behavior when 'la' is empty. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the condition is a strong usage guideline that prevents misuse. It could be improved by mentioning that listing redirects is a separate concern, but the context is clear.

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