wiki_update_index

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects and behavior. It states that the tool rebuilds the index and optionally performs disk-level verification, but it does not mention whether the operation is destructive, overwrites existing data, or has performance implications. This lack of detail reduces transparency.

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 concise and well-structured, with a one-sentence purpose followed by a clear parameter explanation. No unnecessary words or redundant information are present.

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 simple tool, the description covers the core action and parameter. However, it lacks critical context about side effects, relationship to similar sibling tools (e.g., wiki_sync_index), and potential use cases. This leaves some gaps for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke it.

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 single parameter 'deep' is clearly explained in the Args section: 'If True, performs a disk-level verification of all indexed files.' This provides sufficient semantic meaning beyond the raw schema, which contains no description for the parameter.

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 tool's purpose: rebuilding the wiki index from all wiki pages. The verb 'rebuild' and resource 'wiki index' are specific. However, it does not distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling 'wiki_sync_index', which may cause ambiguity.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wiki_sync_index or wiki_lint. It mentions rebuilding from all wiki pages and the deep flag, but leaves the decision-making to the agent without context on appropriate scenarios.

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