test_indexer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the operation does not persist changes, which is the most important behavioral trait. However, it does not mention potential side effects like remote connectivity checks, nor what the response contains, which an agent would benefit from knowing.

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 sentences, no filler, and the most important qualifier ('without saving it') is front-loaded. Every part of the description adds useful information.

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?

The tool is simple and the two-parameter schema is adequately described, but there is no output schema and no description of the return result. An agent invoking a test operation would benefit from knowing what a successful or failed test looks like.

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 input schema already covers both parameters at 100%, but the description adds meaningful semantics: 'config' is a draft resource object and 'id' refers to an existing indexer. It also conveys that exactly one mode should be used, which is not stated in 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 identifies the action ('test'), the resource ('indexer configuration'), and the key distinction from related tools: it tests without saving. It also explains the two invocation modes (draft config vs. existing id), making the tool's purpose completely unambiguous.

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 explains when to pass a config object versus an id, and explicitly notes the operation does not save. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools like create_indexer or get_indexer_schema, but the intended usage is clear from the resource-specific context.

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