prismmoves_preset_reindex

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotency; the description adds that a retained background job is returned, that polling is required, and that inference/download effects may be conditionally triggered. It still does not warn what the rebuild destroys in the existing index, which is the key risk for a destructive operation.

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?

Three tight sentences with the action front-loaded, followed by async behavior, then effect flags. No wasted prose, though 'Base effect flags: write' is terse to the point of being cryptic outside this tool family.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the description still covers the async job contract and conditional permission effects. For a destructive background tool with nested permissions, the main missing piece is the scope of what gets overwritten.

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 coverage is 50%. The phrase 'for an existing report directory' gives the required `output` argument meaning it otherwise lacks, and the effect-flag sentence maps to the write/inference/download entries in the permissions object. The flag semantics remain largely deferred to danceflow_component rather than explained here.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Rebuild the canonical gallery index for an existing report directory.' This is clearly distinct from prismmoves_preset_analyse and prismmoves_preset_legacy by naming the index rebuild action, though it never explicitly routes the agent away from those siblings.

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?

'For an existing report directory' implies the prerequisite, and it names the follow-up tool (danceflow_job_status) plus a conditional dependency check (danceflow_component). It does not state when to choose this over the sibling preset tools, so the guidance is workflow-oriented rather than selection-oriented.

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