redirect_update

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

The description explains the underlying API full-replace behavior and how the tool preserves unspecified fields by merging, which goes beyond the annotations (idempotentHint: true). It also states reversibility by calling again with previous values. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: 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?

The description is concise (3 sentences) and well-structured. The first sentence states the purpose and mandatory condition, the second adds enum values and reversibility, and the third explains the merge behavior. Each sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 complexity of the merge operation, the description adequately covers the behavioral nuance (preserving unspecified fields). It mentions reversibility and the required field condition. However, it does not specify the return value or error handling, which could be helpful for an agent. The absence of an output schema increases the need for such details, but the description is still fairly complete.

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 only 14% schema coverage (only 'regexp' has a description), the description adds meaningful context by listing which parameters are optional and the required constraint (at least one must be supplied). It also describes the redirect_type enum values. However, it does not explain the 'site' and 'redirect_id' parameters beyond being required, and the schema lacks descriptions for most parameters.

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 updates an existing redirect rule and lists the updatable fields (source, destination, redirect_type, active, regexp). It distinguishes from sibling tools like redirect_add, redirect_delete, and redirects_list by focusing on updating an existing rule rather than creating, deleting, or listing.

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, providing a clear usage requirement. It also explains the merge behavior (GET current rule, merge updates, PUT) to avoid misuse. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives beyond the implicit distinction from sibling tools.

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