Redirect Update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Update" implies mutation, but nothing is said about permissions needed, whether this is a partial or full replacement update, whether revisions are created, or whether the redirect path change triggers cache invalidation.

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?

A single grammatical sentence with zero filler, so there is no waste to trim. However, it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than genuinely well-structured, so it lands at the minimum-viable level.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But for a mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage across 7 parameters, the description omits everything an agent needs regarding partial-update semantics, validation, and side effects.

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% with 7 parameters, and the description adds no parameter meaning at all beyond the required redirect_id. The agent cannot learn from the text what language, status_code, redirect_source, redirect_redirect, or the *_options objects do.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Update an existing redirect"), which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from create/delete/list siblings in the redirect family. It stops short of any explicit sibling differentiation or scope qualifiers, so it is clear but not maximally informative.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as redirect_create or redirect_bulk_delete, nor any prerequisites (e.g., that the redirect must already exist, or what happens to fields not supplied). The only implied usage is the word "existing".

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