update_corpus

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

With no annotations, the description effectively discloses that the tool rebuilds locally from RePoE and explains the effect of the parameter. It could add more detail about potential impacts (e.g., time, data loss), but the current description provides reasonable transparency for a specialized utility.

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?

The description is concise with two sentences, front-loads the purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence serves a clear function.

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 single boolean parameter and presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context. It covers the tool's purpose, usage guidance, and parameter semantics, making it complete for effective agent selection.

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%, but the description clearly explains the sole parameter's meaning and effect: 'Pass rebuild_from_source=true to re-fetch RePoE and rebuild the corpus right now.' This adds value beyond 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?

The description clearly states the tool's action ('Rebuild the game-data corpus locally from RePoE') and distinguishes it from other tools (e.g., it's not a check or info tool). The verb 'rebuild' and resource 'corpus' are specific.

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?

The description explicitly says 'Most users don't need this' and provides context (power-user/offline path). It implies when to use (when manual rebuild is needed) and notes the alternative (server auto-updates). However, it does not name a specific sibling tool for the alternative.

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