rag_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it checks for changed files, only re-indexes added/modified/deleted files, and returns a task ID. It does not cover permissions or failure modes, but provides strong transparency for the core behavior.

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 reasonably concise, with a clear two-sentence summary followed by a simple Args/Returns structure. Slight verbosity in explaining the incremental behavior could be tightened, but it is efficient and front-loaded.

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 low complexity (one optional param) and absence of an output schema, the description is fully complete. It states the purpose, the input, the alternative, and the return value (task ID), covering all necessary context for an agent to invoke it 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?

The schema only lists 'source_name' as an optional string with default null. The description adds meaning by explaining it as 'Specific source to update (e.g., "deriva-ml-docs")' and specifying that None updates all configured sources, substantially clarifying the parameter's purpose.

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 performs an 'incremental update' of the 'documentation index', which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'rag_ingest' by contrasting incremental behavior with full ingestion.

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 explicitly notes when to use this tool: 'Much faster than full ingestion when few files have changed,' directly naming the alternative. It also explains the optional 'source_name' parameter and its behavior when None, giving clear usage context.

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