index_close

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's a destructive operation that makes the index unavailable for reads and writes ('无法读写'), but preserves the data ('保留数据'). This covers the essential safety profile (makes index inaccessible but doesn't delete data) that annotations would normally provide. It doesn't mention side effects like impact on cluster state or whether reopening is possible, but covers the core behavioral impact adequately.

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 perfectly concise with zero wasted words. It uses exactly two sentences: one stating the tool's purpose and behavioral effect, and one documenting the parameter. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information. The structure is clear and front-loaded with the most important information first.

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 single-parameter destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate context. It covers what the tool does, its behavioral impact (makes index unavailable but preserves data), and documents the parameter. Given the tool's relative simplicity (one required parameter, clear destructive action), the description feels complete enough for an agent to understand when and how to use it, though it could benefit from mentioning whether the operation is reversible or has prerequisites.

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%, but the description explicitly documents the single parameter 'index' with Chinese label '索引名称' (index name). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't provide format requirements, constraints, or examples that would be helpful given the complete lack of schema descriptions. The parameter documentation is minimal but correct.

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 action ('关闭索引' meaning 'close index') and the resource ('索引' meaning 'index'), with a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from obvious siblings like 'index_open' by describing the opposite operation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other index management tools like 'index_delete' or 'index_set_readonly' beyond the basic action.

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 implies usage context by stating '关闭后无法读写，但保留数据' (after closing, cannot read/write but data is preserved), which suggests when this tool is appropriate versus alternatives like 'index_delete' (which would remove data) or 'index_set_readonly' (which might allow reads). However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or provide clear when-not-to-use guidance beyond the basic behavioral effect.

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