index_set_readonly

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 clearly indicates this is a mutation operation (setting or unsetting readonly status) and mentions the prerequisite relationship to other operations. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like required permissions, whether the change is reversible, potential impacts on indexing/search operations, or error conditions.

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 well-structured with purpose statement, parameter documentation, and examples in separate sections. It's appropriately sized with no wasted sentences. The only minor improvement would be integrating the prerequisite information more seamlessly rather than as a parenthetical note.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description does a reasonable job but has gaps. It covers the purpose, usage context, and parameters well, but lacks information about return values, error conditions, or system behavior changes. The prerequisite information is valuable but doesn't fully compensate for the missing behavioral context that annotations would normally provide.

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 fully compensates by clearly documenting both parameters: 'index' as the index name and 'readonly' as a boolean where True sets to readonly and False cancels readonly. The description provides complete parameter semantics beyond what the bare schema offers, including the meaning of both boolean values.

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 ('设置索引为只读' - set index to readonly) and resource ('索引' - index). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning this is a prerequisite for clone/split/shrink operations, which helps differentiate it from other index management tools like index_close, index_open, or index_get_settings.

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 explicitly provides usage context by stating this is a '前置条件' (prerequisite) for clone/split/shrink operations. This gives clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives - specifically before performing those three specific operations on indices.

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