index_forcemerge

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the resource-intensive nature of the operation and recommends off-peak execution, which are valuable behavioral insights. However, it doesn't mention other important behavioral aspects like whether this operation is reversible, what permissions are required, or how it affects search performance during execution.

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 structured and concise. It begins with the core purpose, lists parameters with clear explanations, and ends with an important usage note. Every sentence earns its place, with zero wasted words or redundant information.

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 this is a potentially destructive index operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description does quite well. It explains what the tool does, documents all parameters meaningfully, and provides critical behavioral guidance about resource intensity. The main gap is lack of information about return values or error conditions, but for a tool with good parameter documentation and usage guidance, this is reasonably complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 3 parameters, the description provides excellent parameter semantics. It clearly explains each parameter in Chinese: '索引名称（可选）' (index name, optional), '合并到的最大段数' (maximum number of segments to merge to), and '仅清除已删除文档' (only expunge deleted documents). This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema, fully compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 as '强制合并索引段' (force merge index segments), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like index_refresh or index_flush that also perform index maintenance operations, though the 'force merge' terminology is distinctive within the Elasticsearch context.

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 clear contextual guidance with '注意：这是资源密集型操作，建议在低峰期执行' (Note: This is a resource-intensive operation, recommended to execute during off-peak hours). This gives important when-to-use guidance, though it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling index management tools.

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