index_put_settings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While '更新' implies a mutation operation, it doesn't disclose important traits: whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, potential performance impacts, rate limits, or what happens to existing settings not mentioned. The example shows a simple update but doesn't describe broader behavioral context.

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 brief but not optimally structured. It leads with the purpose statement, then lists parameters, then provides an example. However, the example could be more integrated, and there's some formatting inconsistency with the Chinese text. Every sentence earns its place, but the structure could be more polished.

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 is incomplete. It identifies what the tool does and its parameters but lacks crucial context about behavioral implications, error conditions, return values, and usage boundaries. The example helps but doesn't compensate for the significant gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate. It lists both parameters ('index' and 'settings') and provides an example showing usage. However, it doesn't explain what constitutes valid settings, format requirements, or constraints beyond what's implied by the example. The description adds basic parameter identification but minimal semantic detail.

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 with a specific verb ('更新' meaning 'update') and resource ('索引设置' meaning 'index settings'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'index_get_settings' (read) and 'cluster_update_settings' (cluster-level). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other index modification tools like 'index_put_mapping'.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, when this operation is appropriate, or what other tools might be better for related tasks (like 'index_create' for initial setup or 'cluster_update_settings' for cluster-wide changes).

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