reembed_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It details default behavior (only missing embeddings) and the effect of force=True, and notes the return type. However, it does not disclose potential side effects or idempotency.

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 well-structured with an overview and an Args section. It is concise but could be slightly more streamlined. Every sentence adds value.

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 simplicity (3 params, no annotations, has output schema), the description covers purpose, parameters, and return value adequately. It could mention edge cases or prerequisites but is sufficient.

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?

The description provides clear explanations for all three parameters (doc_id, batch_size, force) beyond what the schema offers, including their purposes and defaults, compensating for the 0% schema description coverage.

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: to regenerate embeddings for document chunks. It specifies the default behavior (only missing embeddings) and the force option, distinguishing it from sibling tools like rechunk_document.

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 explains when to use the force parameter but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It implies usage for embedding regeneration but lacks exclusions.

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