Update index.md

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it states that with no scope it writes the root index, with a scope it writes <scope>/index.md, and that entries derive from indexed titles and summaries. This aligns with the destructiveHint and idempotentHint annotations, and the 'create or refresh' phrasing conveys that existing index content may be replaced.

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 three sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second specifies the parameter-driven behavior, and the third gives a practical prerequisite. 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 tool with two optional parameters, annotations covering destructiveness/idempotency, and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it covers target file, scope behavior, data source, and a precondition. It could more explicitly address what happens to manual edits in an existing index.md, but 'create or refresh' covers this reasonably.

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 further by explaining the concrete effect of the scope parameter: 'with scope it writes <scope>/index.md' and 'with no scope this is the root index,' which adds file-path semantics not present in the schema. The title parameter is not elaborated in the description, but the schema already documents it.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Create or refresh an index.md catalogue,' and clarifies the root vs scoped behavior. It clearly identifies what file is written, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar siblings like wiki_reindex, which could also be interpreted as an indexing operation.

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 instruction 'keep frontmatter current before calling' provides a useful prerequisite and implies the tool should be used after page metadata is updated. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as wiki_reindex or wiki_index_status.

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