update_operator

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is an incremental rebuild of changed layers, that an existing .uo is required, and that it must not be called on MCP connect. It does not detail side effects or reversibility, but provides substantial behavioral context beyond a bare 'update' label.

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?

Three concise, purposeful sentences. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by two essential constraints and a clear pointer to the alternative tool. No wasted words.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites and usage boundaries well. However, it does not describe the return value or outcome of the plan/confirmation flow, and it doesn't state what happens if confirm_scope is false. This leaves a small but meaningful gap.

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 100%, so all three parameters (project, architecture, confirm_scope) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'incrementally refresh an existing CodeMap', and explains the internal pipeline (detect → plan → rebuild changed layers). It clearly distinguishes itself from index_operator ('only when no .uo exists'), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool ('Requires an existing .uo'), when not to use it ('Do not call on MCP connect'), and names the alternative: 'Use index_operator only when no .uo exists.' This is direct and actionable guidance.

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