reindex_1c_platform_help

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is incremental, that force=true is refused (with the reason being a request timeout), and that a full rebuild is intentionally out of scope. It does not explicitly describe side effects or permissions, but it gives a clear behavior for both normal and error cases. This is valuable beyond the schema and enough for a maintenance tool.

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 concise and well-structured: it starts with a service marker and immediately defines the action, then gives use-case guidance and a key limitation. Every sentence adds relevant information, though it could have saved a few words by relying even more on the schema, but no filler exists.

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 it is a service-action tool with 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers when, why, and when not to call it, including the external alternative. It does not describe the return type or what a successful call looks like, but that is less critical for a maintenance utility that was explicitly described as rarely needed. It is complete enough for an agent to act 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%, and the description provides no additional parameter-level semantics; the parameters are already well-documented (root, source, force) in the schema. The description references some behaviors (like force refusal) but those are already stated in the schema description for 'force'. Thus, the base score 3 applies.

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 explicitly states a specific verb and resource: 'incrementally update the help index' with a clear definition that only changed files are reindexed. It also distinguishes the tool from the siblings (search, get_document, etc.) and from a full rebuild, so there is no ambiguity.

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?

Excellent guidance: it says 'usually not needed' and specifies the only scenario where it should be called (when the index is out of sync after updating or adding help files). It also tells the user exactly when not to use it and what alternative to use (external command), providing strong when/when-not rules.

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