add_redirect_uri

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the required format for environmentId and the uri, which is helpful, but it does not disclose whether the operation is idempotent, whether duplicates are rejected, or what happens if the URI is already present. It also doesn't mention any side effects or permissions needed.

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 with no filler. The action, target, and both parameters are covered efficiently, and the parameter details are front-loaded.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essentials. However, with no annotations, it would benefit from stating whether the operation is additive-only, whether duplicates are allowed, and any authorization requirements. The sibling list shows related tools, but the description doesn't explicitly route to them.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly explains both parameters: environmentId format (env_<number>) and uri (the callback URL to add). This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, which only provides a pattern and format. However, it doesn't elaborate on edge cases like whether the URI must be absolute or match a specific scheme.

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 ('Add a callback URL'), the target resource ('allowed redirect URIs list for an environment'), and the required parameters. It distinguishes itself from siblings like remove_redirect_uri and add_post_logout_redirect_uri by specifying the exact list being modified.

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 when to use this tool (when adding a callback URL to an environment's allowed redirect URIs) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like add_post_logout_redirect_uri. The context is clear enough for an agent to select it, but exclusions are absent.

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