update_indexer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses the most important behavioral trait: this is a full-object replacement (PUT-style), not a partial update — 'send the whole object back' warns against sending only changed fields. It also implies a precondition that the resource must already exist. Missing error behavior and idempotency details, but the critical mutation semantics are covered.

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 sentences with zero wasted words: the first front-loads the purpose, the second delivers the workflow and the critical whole-object constraint. Every sentence earns its place.

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 2-parameter mutation tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers everything needed to invoke it correctly: the precondition, the payload construction, and the replacement semantics. Minor gaps are the return value and failure behavior (e.g., invalid id), which would be nice given there is no output schema, but they don't block correct invocation.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining where the config object comes from (get_indexer) and reinforcing the schema's 'full resource object' requirement with 'send the whole object back,' which prevents a common partial-payload mistake.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Update an existing indexer'), and the word 'existing' distinguishes it from create_indexer among the siblings. It is clear, though it does not explicitly name the sibling it is not, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 a concrete usage workflow: fetch with get_indexer first, modify, then send the whole object back. This is clear contextual guidance for when and how to use the tool, though it does not state exclusions or explicitly route the agent to create_indexer for new indexers.

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