redirect_update

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

The description goes beyond annotations by explaining the full-replace nature of the underlying API and how the tool merges updates to preserve unspecified fields. It also notes reversibility, providing valuable behavioral insight.

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?

Three clear sentences: purpose with constraints, underlying API behavior, tool's handling. No unnecessary words; each sentence adds distinct value.

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 no output schema and simple annotations, the description covers key aspects: what it does, required parameters, optional fields, merge behavior, and reversibility. It could mention the return value, but overall complete for an update tool.

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?

With low schema coverage (14%), the description adds meaning by listing the optional fields and specifying the enum values for redirect_type. Required parameters (site, redirect_id) are not explained but their purpose is inferable from context.

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 explicitly states 'Update an existing redirect rule' and lists the updatable fields. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like redirect_add, redirect_delete, and redirects_list by focusing on update semantics.

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 specifies that at least one of the optional fields must be supplied, guiding partial updates. It also explains the merge behavior to avoid pitfalls. While it doesn't explicitly say when not to use, the purpose is well-defined.

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