codebase_update

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

Given no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: incremental update, synchronous execution, and dependency on file changes. It does not detail side effects or failure modes but is reasonably transparent 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?

Extremely concise with three short sentences. Each sentence adds value: action, scope, synchronicity, and a usage caveat. No unnecessary words.

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?

Covers purpose, behavior, and a key usage guideline. Missing details like prerequisites (must have an existing index?) or error handling, but for a simple update tool with optional parameters and no output, it is largely complete.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no extra context or constraints beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

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 it incrementally updates a codebase index, specifically re-indexing only changed files. It distinguishes itself from a full re-index (implicitly) and from the file watcher by noting it is usually not needed if the watcher is active.

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?

Provides clear guidance: 'Runs synchronously' and 'Usually not needed if file watcher is active' informs when to use or avoid the tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like codebase_index or codebase_watch, missing a direct alternative.

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