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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the merge policy (curated tags/summary/category preserved, new pages added, stale pages removed) and the admin-scope requirement. It still omits cost/duration, whether the crawl is rate-limited or can fail partway, and whether removals are reversible.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then mechanism, then merge semantics, then the auth prerequisite. Every sentence adds information an agent needs; nothing repeats structured fields.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers purpose, side effects, and authorization. The remaining gap is the optional version parameter's default and what the tool returns or reports on failure — relevant because there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 0% and there is one optional parameter, so the description must compensate. 'For a given version' gives partial meaning, but does not state the expected format, valid values, or what happens when version is omitted (required list is empty), leaving the default behavior undocumented.

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 resource ('Rebuild the Duck Framework documentation index') and immediately explains the mechanism (crawl live sitemap for a version, merge in). This is clearly distinguishable from read-only siblings like search_docs and list_doc_categories, which only consume the index this tool builds.

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 — an agent can infer this is the refresh operation for a docs index, but the description never says when to call it versus search_docs or list_doc_categories, nor when not to (e.g. avoid running concurrently with other index consumers). No alternatives are named.

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