Delete website redirect

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral context: 'Permanently deletes' confirms irreversibility, and the instruction to pass the from value exactly as returned from the list endpoint clarifies the required input provenance. This is useful beyond the annotations, which only convey generic safety flags.

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 sentences with zero extraneous information. The first sentence states the purpose and permanence, and the second gives a precise actionable instruction. The critical usage constraint is front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 delete tool with 3 required params and no output schema, the description covers the essential action, the identifier source, and implies the necessary context (username, domain). It does not mention error scenarios or idempotency, but the annotations already signal destructive and idempotent behavior. The only minor gap is lack of explicit note that the redirect must exist, but the instructions are sufficient for correct manual use.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description and schema add real value for the `from` parameter: the schema says 'Source URL returned by the list redirects endpoint,' and the description reinforces passing it exactly. The `domain` and `username` descriptions are minimal ('Domain name', 'username parameter') but adequate. Overall, the from parameter semantics are significantly enriched, warranting a 4.

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 action: 'Permanently deletes the redirect identified by its source URL.' It identifies the resource (redirect), the verb (delete), and the key identifier (source URL). It distinguishes itself from siblings like hosting_listWebsiteRedirectsV1 and hosting_createWebsiteRedirectV1 by specifying deletion, so an agent can easily tell them apart.

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 provides a clear usage context: 'Pass the from value exactly as returned by the list redirects endpoint.' This prescribes a prerequisite and exact input source, guiding the agent to first list redirects. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the instruction gives enough context for correct invocation.

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