alias_actions

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses atomicity, the allowed action types, the write-policy check on every index, and the requirement that writes be enabled and confirm=true. These are valuable behavioral details the annotations do not provide, and there is no contradiction.

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 information-dense but still compact, and the concrete example earns its place. The most important constraints, atomicity and allowed operations, are front-loaded before the example and prerequisites.

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 two-parameter, not-destructive configuration operation, the description covers how to call the tool, what operations are allowed, when to use it, and what prerequisites must hold. The output schema implicitly explains return behavior, so the absence of an explicit return description is not a meaningful gap. The only slight miss is no detail about partial failure behavior beyond 'atomically,' which is minor.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It gives a concrete JSON array example for 'actions' and clarifies that only add/remove operations are valid. It also explicitly ties 'confirm=true' to execution requirements. The main gap is not explaining the string alternative allowed by the schema, but the core semantics are well covered.

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: 'Add or remove index aliases atomically in one request.' It also clearly differentiates the tool from sibling operations by naming the only allowed actions ('Only add/remove are allowed') and by framing the operation as an atomic alias swap.

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?

Explicitly identifies a concrete use case: 'Use this to swap an alias from an old index to a new one with zero downtime after a reindex.' It also gives operational prerequisites, but it does not name sibling alternatives or explicitly exclude them; the context makes the intended usage clear enough.

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