authoring-rebuild-indexes

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing cost ('expensive'), the side effect that search results are incomplete while it runs, and the asynchronous job model ('returns the jobs it queued'). Annotations only cover the read/destructive flags, so this added operational context is genuinely valuable.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and its result, followed by the cost caveat and the follow-up calls. No filler; each sentence supports a distinct decision the agent must make.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by stating what is returned (job names) and how to consume it (poll with authoring-get-job). Combined with the value-discovery hint and cost warning, nothing needed to invoke this tool correctly is missing.

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% with an example value, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value by telling the agent how to discover valid index names via the GraphQL indexes query, which is not derivable from the schema.

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 ('Starts a rebuild of one or more Sitecore search indexes') plus the API surface and the returned artifact (queued jobs). It does not, however, differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling indexing-rebuild-search-index, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool.

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?

Gives a clear when-not condition ('prefer it only when the index is actually stale') and routes follow-up work explicitly to authoring-get-job and authoring-graphql. It stops short of naming an alternative rebuild/indexing tool, so the sibling ambiguity is left for the agent to resolve.

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