trigger_index_sync

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the background job trigger and job_id return, but fails to explain mutation, destructiveness, prerequisites, or side effects (e.g., what 'reset_db' does). The description is insufficient for safe use.

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 only two sentences, no fluff. It front-loads the action and return value, achieving maximum conciseness.

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?

Given the tool triggers a background job, it lacks details on idempotency, side effects, and prerequisites. Parameters are unexplained. Despite an output schema existing, the description is incomplete for safe and correct agent invocation.

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%, and the description does not mention or explain any parameters. The 'reset_db' parameter especially needs clarification (e.g., does it reset the index?). The description adds no value over the bare schema.

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 verb 'trigger' and resource 'background indexing job for Plesk documentation', and mentions the return value. It distinguishes from the sibling 'check_sync_status' but not from other potential alternatives like 'refresh_knowledge'.

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 indicates when to use the tool (to trigger indexing) and what to do with the result (use with check_sync_status). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternative tools, leaving some ambiguity.

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