indexing-set-search-index-state

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write nature is already conveyed; the description adds the meaningful behavioral detail that omitting name widens the blast radius to every matching index. It stops short of disclosing anything about permissions, whether suspend survives a restart, or whether the operation is synchronous — real gaps, but smaller given annotation coverage.

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 tight sentences: purpose first, bulk-scope caveat second, sibling routing third. No filler and nothing buried at the end that belongs up front.

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 two-parameter index-state tool with no output schema and clear annotations, the description covers action, scope, and alternatives. It omits operational context such as required privileges or whether state changes persist, which a mutating index operation would ideally mention.

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% and the schema already documents both parameters, including the omit-name behavior and the per-action semantics of the enum. The description largely restates what the schema carries, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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 specific verbs (suspends, stops, resumes) against a specific resource (Sitecore search indexes), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the two nearest siblings, indexing-rebuild-search-index and indexing-get-search-index. An agent can route correctly 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?

Names both alternatives with the condition that selects them: rebuild vs. this tool, and read state vs. this tool. It also states the bulk case ('Omit name to act on every index in the matching state'), so both the when and the when-not are covered.

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