Reindex Website Source

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description goes beyond these by disclosing the async nature ('Async — the existing source record is updated in place once indexing finishes'), authentication requirements (app-token or B2B with explicit appId), and specific error codes (401/403 wrong auth, 404 unknown appId/urlId). This adds meaningful operational context without contradicting the annotations.

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 compact—four sentences, each carrying distinct value: the action and variant, async update behavior, prerequisite, and auth/error/related pointers. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids extraneous detail. Slightly verbose but not padded; the structure is clean and efficient.

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 simple reindex tool with only two parameters, the description covers the essential operational aspects: what it does, async behavior, prerequisites, auth modes, error cases, and related tools. The only omission is an explicit description of the return value, but given there is no output schema and the async nature, this is a minor gap. The description is otherwise sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reiterates that `urlId` comes from list, and adds that `appId` is required in B2B mode unless set via `ethora-app-select`, but this information already exists in the schema's parameter descriptions. The description does not introduce new semantics beyond what the schema already documents, so it stays at the baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Re-crawl and re-embed a previously crawled URL by its `urlId`, refreshing its RAG content'. This clearly states what the tool does and names the target. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it's the app-token/B2B variant and referencing the wait block tool, making its position in the family clear.

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 a clear prerequisite: requires an indexed site URL from `ethora-sources-site-list-v2` (crawled with `ethora-sources-site-crawl-v2`), which effectively tells the agent when to use this tool (only after a URL has been crawled). It also points to the related wait tool and how to obtain `urlId`. It doesn't explicitly say 'use X instead if Y', but the prerequisite and related-tool mentions give adequate guidance for selection.

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