flightlog_rebuild

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states the operation is destructive ('Drop and recreate'), but lacks details on consequences (e.g., data loss, impact on current sessions, required permissions) or post-operation state. More transparency would help the agent assess risk.

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 two sentences, no extraneous words, and front-loads the action. 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?

Given that this is a destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the trigger condition but omits post-invocation behavior (e.g., success/failure indicators, impact on other tools). While sufficient for a simple tool, it could be more complete for safe agent decision-making.

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 tool has no parameters (schema coverage 100% with empty schema). Per guidelines, zero parameters yields a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter information since none exist, which is appropriate.

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 states the action ('Drop and recreate the entire conversation index from scratch') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like flightlog_delete_sessions or flightlog_search by being a destructive rebuild 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 description gives explicit conditions for use: 'when the database is corrupted or schema has changed.' This guides the agent effectively. It does not explicitly mention when not to use, but the condition is sufficiently specific to avoid misuse.

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