manage_hypothetical_indexes

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, etc., covering basic safety. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that indexes are in-memory only (not persisted), lists specific actions like 'reset' that drop all indexes, and mentions testing scenarios without affecting real indexes. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 clear sections (overview, actions list, use cases) and avoids redundancy. However, it's moderately lengthy due to enumerating 10 actions and use cases; some sentences could be more condensed while maintaining clarity, slightly affecting efficiency.

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 complexity (10 parameters, multiple actions) and lack of output schema, the description provides comprehensive context on actions and use cases. It compensates well for missing output details by explaining what each action does, though it could briefly mention expected return types or error handling for full completeness.

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%, providing full parameter documentation. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema, mainly by listing actions and their purposes without detailing parameter interactions or constraints. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding significantly.

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 manages HypoPG hypothetical indexes for testing, specifying it creates in-memory indexes to test query plans without creating real ones. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on hypothetical index management rather than analysis, recommendations, or real index operations found in tools like 'explain_with_indexes' or 'find_unused_indexes'.

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 lists 10 specific actions with their purposes and includes a 'This is useful for' section detailing scenarios like testing query improvements, comparing strategies, and simulating index removal. It provides clear when-to-use guidance by contrasting with real index operations and outlining practical testing contexts.

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