action_add_redis

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states that this is a mutating operation ('Add Redis to one endpoint'), names the exact context bindings created, and discloses security-relevant design details: opaque random tokens, server-side storage, prefix-safe keys, bounded TTL, and no JWT or signing secret. It does not mention edge cases like overwriting existing Redis bindings, but the core behavioral profile is clear.

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 sentences carry distinct, valuable information: what the tool does, when to use it vs auth_setup, and how the underlying authentication tokens work. There is no filler, and the primary action is 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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete: it explains the effect, the relevant usage constraints, and the security model. It could add return-value or idempotency details, but these are non-critical for selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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%, and the endpoint parameter already has a precise format description. The tool description adds conceptual context about ctx.REDIS and ctx.REDIS_PREFIX but does not need to explain the endpoint syntax further. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Add Redis to one endpoint as ctx.REDIS and ctx.REDIS_PREFIX.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling actions like action_add_s3 or action_add_postgresql by naming the target binding and scope.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to avoid this tool for authenticated pages and to 'use auth_setup to configure the complete set atomically.' It also clarifies the per-endpoint purpose of action_add_redis, giving concrete routing guidance between the two sibling tools.

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