update_index

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals incremental processing via SHA-256 hash detection, speed advantage, and the ability to preview with dry run. However, it doesn't explicitly state if the operation is reversible or if the index must first exist.

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 sentences, all essential information packed without redundancy. Front-loaded with purpose, then comparative guidance, then best practice. No wasted words.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose and usage well but lacks any indication of what the tool returns (e.g., success message, list of updated files). Requires the user to infer return behavior.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a usage hint for dryRun but does not elaborate beyond the schema definitions for directory and force. This is adequate but not exceptional.

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 refreshes the search index after code changes, using a verb 'Refresh' and a specific resource 'search index'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly recommending use over re-indexing, likely referencing 'index_codebase'.

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?

Explicitly says 'USE THIS instead of re-indexing' for updates after code changes and advises using dryRun=true to preview changes first. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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