put_index

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that updates are restricted to current user's directories, which is useful context. No contradictions with annotations. However, it does not disclose error behavior (e.g., if index not found or not owned) or what happens to existing data.

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?

One sentence, no fluff, directly states the action and scope. Front-loaded with 'update' verb. Every word earns its place.

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 updates an index with nested parameters, and there is an output schema, the description is minimal. It omits specifics like which fields (title, description) can be updated, idempotency behavior (though in annotations), and typical response expectations. Could expand to mention that only the owner can update and that the request body matches the Subject model.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description of params adds context by referencing the Subject model, which helps explain field meanings. Baseline is 3 due to high coverage, and the extra context is helpful but not essential since schema is already descriptive.

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?

Description clearly states 'update directory information created by the current user', providing a specific verb and resource with ownership scope. It distinguishes from siblings like put_index_subject (updates subjects within an index) and post_index (creates). However, it could be more explicit about which fields are updated (title/description) and the distinction from delete operations.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., user must own the index), common use cases, or when not to use it. With many sibling tools (e.g., put_index_subject, post_index), explicit usage guidance is missing.

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