Index raw text

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds the key behavioral nuance the annotations cannot express: default replace:true deletes existing content for the same uri, while replace:false appends. That upsert-vs-append distinction is exactly the kind of context an agent needs.

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 tight sentences: the first establishes scope, the second delivers the replace/append rule. Nothing is redundant and the actionable guidance is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema and seven parameters, the description covers the purpose and the one parameter choice that materially changes behavior. It does not mention return values or interaction with collection/kind filtering, but nothing critical to a correct call is missing.

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 the baseline is 3. The description goes slightly beyond the schema by framing replace:false as 'append a new version' and tying uri to stable replacement, clarifying intent rather than restating the field. Most parameter detail, however, still lives 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('index arbitrary text ... into a collection') and enumerates the content types it handles (notes, snippets, memory, logs), which implicitly separates it from index_paths. It never explicitly names the sibling it is not, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Gives clear operational guidance: reuse a stable uri to replace prior content, or pass replace:false to append a version. This tells the agent how to achieve both upsert and versioning. It stops short of saying when to prefer index_paths or search over this tool.

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