update_embeddings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a mutation of the embedding index, but says nothing about whether deletions are irreversible, whether re-embedding occurs, how long it takes, or what permissions are needed — a significant gap for a write 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?

Two short sentences that front-load the core operation, with the parameter clarification following. No filler, though the phrasing 'adds/deletes are arrays' is slightly informal.

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?

For a 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves key gaps: the slug's meaning, required permissions, and the consequences/reversibility of deletes. It is not sufficient for confident invocation.

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 0%, and the description does compensate partially by explaining that adds/deletes are arrays of document paths sourced from list_documents/get_workspace. However, the required 'slug' parameter is left entirely unexplained in both the schema and the description.

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?

States specific verbs (add/remove) and the resource (documents in a workspace's embeddings), which is clear enough to distinguish from read-oriented siblings like list_documents and get_workspace. It does not explicitly name a sibling it replaces, but the operation type is unambiguous.

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 implies when to use it (to modify the embedding set) and usefully points to list_documents/get_workspace as the source of document paths. However, it gives no exclusions, prerequisites, or contrast with alternatives such as update_workspace.

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