Add Index

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

Annotations already declare the write/safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds context beyond them: the operation is a mutation requiring an enterprise write gate and targeting an enterprise .sde dataset, plus a verification step. That is meaningful disclosure, though it omits reversibility or failure behavior.

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 tightly packed sentence with the primary action front-loaded and the write-gate precondition trailing. It is efficient and free of filler, though the compressed style slightly reduces readability.

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, and annotations cover safety. Still, with 5 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no alternative-routing or permission details beyond the write gate, the definition is only adequate for a mutation tool.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only loosely alludes to the fields ('exact field list') and says nothing about index_name, unique (NON_UNIQUE default), or ascending (NON_ASCENDING default). The two enumerated-style optional parameters are left entirely 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?

The description states a specific verb (add attribute index), the resource (fields of a controlled .sde dataset), and an extra action (verify/review), which lets an agent distinguish it from remove_index or rebuild_indexes. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 discloses a precondition (requires the enterprise write gate) and scopes the target to controlled .sde datasets, which implies when the tool applies. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use-versus-alternative routing against siblings like rebuild_indexes or remove_index.

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