Commit study index

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

Annotations indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false). Description adds no further detail on overwrite behavior, error conditions, or side effects. Does not contradict annotations.

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?

Single sentence is concise and front-loaded with purpose. Could be expanded with structure (e.g., bullet points) but no unnecessary 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?

No output schema and no description of return values or success/failure indicators. Lacks context on default output directory ('output') and behavior when directory exists. For a store action, this is insufficient.

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 low (33%). Description adds minimal meaning: implies index_en and index_fa are content strings but no format, constraints, or examples. output_dir schema has description; description adds nothing extra.

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?

Clearly states the action ('store'), resource ('study indexes'), and scope ('Persian and English', 'authored by the host agent'). Distinguishes from sibling tools which operate on boundaries, chunks, and boundaries.

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 on when to use versus alternatives (e.g., write_chunks, get_study_index_context). No prerequisites, exclusion criteria, or related tool suggestions.

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