proxy_redirections

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

Annotations already flag readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the destructive nature is known structurally. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: the approval / ALLOW_WRITES gating requirement for create and delete. It does not disclose what a delete removes (the rule only, vs. associated certs/hosts) or whether writes are reversible.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the most decision-relevant fact (approval gating for writes) is stated up front. It is arguably too terse rather than padded, but on the conciseness axis it is efficient.

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 9-parameter, 3-action tool with zero schema documentation, the description should map parameters to actions (e.g., create needs domain_names + forward_domain; delete needs redirection_id). An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the per-action parameter requirements and the meaning of dry_run are left entirely to guesswork.

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% across 9 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and does not meet it. It clarifies only the `action` enum values; `domain_names`, `forward_domain`, `forward_scheme`, `preserve_path`, `redirection_id`, `dry_run`, `limit`, and `offset` are entirely undocumented, including which are required for which action.

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?

"HTTP redirections" names the resource and the second sentence enumerates the three actions (list/create/delete), which is the key fact that this is a multiplexed action tool. But there is no verb describing what managing a redirection actually entails (e.g., domain forwarding rules), and no differentiation from siblings like proxy_hosts or dns_records beyond the noun.

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 distinguishes the read path from the write paths ("list is read-only; create and delete need approval"), which implies when each action is appropriate. It gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over proxy_hosts, dns_records, or expose_service, and no prerequisite context for first-time users.

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