indexing-rebuild-search-index

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) by disclosing the cost profile of a full rebuild and the fact that search results are left incomplete while it runs, plus the async job/polling pattern. These are operationally decisive facts an agent would not otherwise know.

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 sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with the core action and then the mode-selection rules in order of increasing scope. Every clause either sets behavior or routes the caller.

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?

With 6 optional parameters, no output schema, and no enum constraints, the description covers all decision paths (scope selection, async behavior, cost). Nothing needed to invoke it 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%, so the parameter docs already carry the load and baseline is 3. The description adds interaction semantics the schema states only per-field: the id-vs-path-vs-neither decision and the coupling of name to whole-index vs subtree rebuilds, which is genuinely useful but partially redundant.

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 ('Rebuilds Sitecore search indexes') and immediately elaborates the three operating modes. An agent can distinguish it from indexing-find-item and indexing-set-search-index-state without opening any schema.

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 explicit conditional guidance for each mode: omit id/path for whole indexes, omit name too for every index (with a cost warning), supply id or path for a subtree 'which is what you want after changing a branch of content,' and pass asJob to poll with common-get-sitecore-job. Names both the alternative tool and the trigger conditions.

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