create_indexer

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

With no annotations, the description carries most of the burden. It adds useful behavioral detail by requiring the config to be built from get_indexer_schema and enumerating required fields, but it doesn't describe return values, failure modes, duplicate handling, or side effects beyond creation.

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?

Two short, purposeful sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded, the schema dependency is stated, and the field list is compact.

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 a single nested config parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete for invocation: it covers the source schema and required fields. It omits response/error expectations, but the agent has enough to construct a valid request.

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?

The schema only says config is 'Full indexer resource object, based on the schema,' which is generic. The description significantly adds meaning by listing the exact fields required: name, implementation, configContract, fields array, enableRss, enableAutomaticSearch, enableInteractiveSearch, priority, and protocol.

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 uses a specific verb ('Add') and a specific resource ('a new indexer'), making the action unmistakable. It is clearly differentiated from sibling tools like update_indexer, delete_indexer, and test_indexer by stating 'Add a new indexer'.

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 gives concrete procedural guidance: build the body from get_indexer_schema and include the listed fields. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the 'Add a new indexer' scoping makes the intended use clear.

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