url_forward_add

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior ('source URL will redirect or frame to the destination URL'), which is helpful, but it omits side effects, edge cases, or prerequisites such as whether the domain already exists. The description adds some value beyond annotations but lacks richness.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose and maintains high information density without unnecessary detail.

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?

The description mentions 'for a domain' but the input schema has no domain parameter, creating ambiguity about how the domain is specified. It also does not describe return values, prerequisites, or whether existing rules might be affected. For a 7-parameter tool with no output schema, this is a significant completeness gap.

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 the parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description does not add additional meaning about parameters, just restates the overall redirect/frame behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific action ('Add a URL forwarding rule') and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like url_forward_update, url_forward_remove, and url_forward_list. Mentioning redirect/frame behavior further clarifies the tool's function.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb 'Add' and the tool name; there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like url_forward_update. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, but the context is reasonably clear for a creation operation.

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