bookshelf_update_config_indexer

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'WRITE: this modifies your Bookshelf instance' reinforces but does not significantly add to the known safety profile. It does clarify that the operation modifies the instance, but gives no details about side effects, permissions, or whether the update is partial or full replacement. This is acceptable given annotation coverage but lacks richer behavioral context.

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 extremely concise, with two short sentences front-loading the action and a clear warning about modification. Every word earns its place, but it is almost too terse—there is no structural breakdown or additional helpful context. It scores high on conciseness, though the minimalism borders on under-specification.

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 presence of a nested body object and the lack of parameter documentation, the description is incomplete for an AI agent to invoke this tool correctly. It does not explain the config indexer's purpose, how the body relates to existing settings, or any expected behavior. The output schema exists for return values, but the input side is severely underexplained.

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%, so the description must compensate for explaining the 'id' and 'body' parameters. It does not mention either parameter, what they represent, or how they should be structured. The nested 'body' object with additionalProperties true is undocumented, leaving the agent without any clue about valid content. This is a critical gap.

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 the verb 'Update' and the resource 'config indexer,' clearly identifying the tool's action. It does not specify the scope or details of the config indexer, but it is distinct from sibling tools like get_config_indexer and get_config_indexer_by_id. The 'WRITE' label adds emphasis but no extra purpose clarification.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools such as get_config_indexer for retrieving current settings. The only implication is that it updates the config indexer, but no context about typical use cases or limitations.

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