update_symbol_index

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

Goes beyond annotations by explaining the cost of each call ('each call costs a bridge refresh'), the fact that it indexes files changed outside this server, and the distinct behavior of omitting filePath. It also imparts the efficiency warning about wasted round trips, which is valuable operational context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 yet information-dense. It leads with the core purpose, immediately follows with an explicit exclusion, and then covers a niche use case and a special parameter omission. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is complete. It covers main use, misuse, special cases, and performance considerations, leaving no ambiguity about when and how to invoke it.

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?

Although the schema already documents filePath, the description adds crucial semantics: batching for arrays, the performance cost per call, and the special meaning of omitting filePath (bridge/cache refresh only, no symbol-DB indexing). This adds significant value beyond the raw schema.

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: indexing D365FO XML files changed outside the server. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like d365fo_file create/modify by explicitly noting they refresh the index automatically, making this tool only for external changes.

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 explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. It warns against calling after d365fo_file create/modify and gives a specific genuine use case (naming a new AxEdt/AxEnum in generate_object), plus explains the special case of omitting filePath for a bridge/cache refresh only.

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