business_fts_rebuild

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior such as whether this mutates data, requires permissions, or rebuilds indexes destructively. The description contains none of this, providing zero transparency for a presumably state-changing operation.

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?

While the description is extremely short, this is under-specification rather than conciseness. There is no front-loading of meaningful constraints or alternatives; the text is just the name repeated, so it fails to earn its place as a useful addition.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, required fields, no output schema) and the absence of annotations, the description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot determine how to invoke this correctly without substantial external knowledge.

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% and the description provides no parameter explanations. With 6 parameters (including required repository_id and target_commit), the agent has no idea what each parameter means or how they relate to the rebuild operation.

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 'business fts rebuild' is a near-verbatim restatement of the tool name. It adds no verb, resource, or scope clarification beyond what the name already implies, making it a tautology that fails to distinguish this tool from siblings like 'semantic_fts_rebuild' or 'index_rebuild'.

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?

There is no guidance whatsoever on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios, leaving the agent to guess from the name alone.

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