index_prepare_for_shrink

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It clearly describes the two behavioral changes: setting index to read-only and migrating shards to one node. However, it doesn't mention potential impacts like downtime, performance implications, whether changes are reversible, or what happens if the operation fails. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 appropriately concise with three clear sections: purpose statement, action description, and parameter explanations. Each sentence earns its place, though the Chinese formatting with line breaks could be slightly more compact. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose 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 mutation tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate basics but lacks important context. It explains what the tool does and parameters, but doesn't cover error conditions, return values, prerequisites, or side effects. Given the complexity of index preparation operations, more completeness would be helpful.

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, the description compensates well by explaining both parameters: 'index' is the index name, and 'target_node' is optional with clear default behavior ('不传则使用第一个数据节点' - if not provided, uses the first data node). This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify format requirements or 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: '准备索引用于收缩' (prepare index for shrink) and specifies the two actions it performs: setting the index to read-only and migrating all shards to the same node. It distinguishes from siblings like index_shrink by being a prerequisite step, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other index management tools like index_set_readonly.

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 this is a '前置条件' (prerequisite) for shrink operations, suggesting it should be used before index_shrink. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when NOT to use it or mention alternatives for similar operations. The relationship to index_shrink is implied but not explicitly stated as an alternative.

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