alias_set

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

The description explains the underlying behavior beyond the annotations: clients continue querying the alias while the collection is swapped, which reinforces the non-destructive mutation implied by the annotations. It doesn't mention side effects on the old collection, but still provides meaningful 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 two tight sentences with the verb/action and use case front-loaded. There is no redundant phrasing or repetition of the tool name, and every clause adds context.

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 two simple string parameters and an existing output schema, the description gives enough context about when and how to use the tool. It could mention whether the alias or collection must already exist, but the core operation, purpose, and invocation context are sufficiently covered.

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 alone must clarify parameters. It conveys that 'alias' is the stable endpoint clients query and 'collection' is the target being pointed to, which adds relationship meaning. Even so, it doesn't specify exact value formats, whether names or IDs are expected, or any option constraints.

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 uses a specific action and resource pair ('Points an alias at a collection') and immediately adds the practical goal: zero-downtime blue/green re-indexing. This distinguishes it from general collection creation/deletion tools or search operations and makes the tool's role unambiguous.

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 gives an explicit use case: 'Use this when republishing a freshly re-indexed collection without downtime.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, so it stops just short of complete routing guidance.

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