bookshelf_action_indexer

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

The description adds 'WRITE: this modifies your Bookshelf instance', which explicitly discloses the mutating nature beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). However, it does not provide additional behavioral context such as permissions, side effects on existing actions, or response details. The added value over annotations is minimal.

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 compact—two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by a write warning. Every word earns its place, but the extreme brevity leaves out necessary detail, reflecting under-specification rather than ideal conciseness.

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 the tool has two parameters (one required, one nested object) and no schema description coverage, the description is far from complete. It does not explain what an 'indexer action' is, what 'name' should be, or what 'body' can contain. The presence of an output schema and sibling tools cannot compensate for this missing essential context.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description explains neither the 'name' nor 'body' parameters. The agent receives no guidance on what values to provide for the required 'name' or the optional 'body' object. With no parameter semantics in the description, correct invocation relies entirely on guessing.

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 'Create indexer action' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like bookshelf_create_indexer and bookshelf_update_indexer. The phrase is concise but lacks elaboration on what an 'indexer action' entails, preventing a perfect score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as bookshelf_test_indexer or bookshelf_create_indexer. The 'WRITE:' warning is about side effects, not usage context. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool recommendations.

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