index_put_mapping

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 a critical behavioral trait: '只能添加字段，不能修改已有字段' (can only add fields, cannot modify existing fields). This is essential context for a mutation operation. However, it doesn't mention permissions needed, rate limits, or what happens on failure, leaving some behavioral aspects uncovered.

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 efficiently structured with a purpose statement, parameter list, and example. Every sentence earns its place, though the example could be slightly more informative about typical usage patterns. The information is front-loaded with the core constraint stated 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 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does reasonably well but has gaps. It explains parameters and a key constraint, but doesn't describe return values, error conditions, or prerequisites. Given the complexity, it should ideally mention typical response format or success indicators.

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 all three parameters in Chinese: '索引名称' (index name), '字段定义' (field definitions), and '动态映射策略 true/false/strict' (dynamic mapping strategy). It provides clear semantic meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail the structure of 'properties' object or 'dynamic' enum values beyond the listed options.

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 specific action ('更新索引映射' - update index mapping) and resource ('索引' - index), with a crucial behavioral constraint ('只能添加字段，不能修改已有字段' - can only add fields, cannot modify existing fields). This distinguishes it from other index-related tools like index_create or index_get_mapping by specifying its exact mutation scope.

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 through the behavioral constraint about adding vs. modifying fields, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like index_create (for initial mapping) or index_put_settings (for other index changes). No sibling tool comparisons or explicit when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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