tinyurl_change_destination

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it discloses the HTTP verb/endpoint and the required token permission, which help an agent reason about auth and mutation semantics. It does not say whether the previous destination is recoverable, whether the alias must already exist, or what a failure response looks like for a destructive-in-effect operation.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then requirements, then permission. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with complete schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers action, scope, required inputs, and auth. Only edge-case behavior (nonexistent alias, reversibility) is unaddressed, which is a minor gap given no annotations to compensate.

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 100%, so alias format, url byte-preservation, and the fixed domain enum are already fully documented. The description only restates 'alias' and 'exact new absolute http(s) url', adding nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and field-level resource: changing the destination of one exact TinyURL alias, plus the underlying PATCH /change endpoint. The 'one exact alias' scoping is precise. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tinyurl_update, which an agent could reasonably read as also modifying an alias.

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?

Prerequisites are given (needs alias plus exact absolute http(s) url, and token permission 'Update TinyURL'), which implies when the call is valid. But there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-tinyurl_update guidance, and no statement about what happens if the alias does not exist.

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