Index Repo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does it well: it discloses that the operation wipes and rewrites scanner-origin rows and explicitly states that manual/git-origin rows are preserved — the key destructive-scope fact. It does not mention permissions, runtime/long-running behavior, or whether it blocks, which is the remaining gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that delivers the destructive scope and the preservation guarantee with zero filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 no explanation, and the destructive semantics are covered. However, for an unannotated mutation tool, the vault parameter is left completely undefined and no auth/prerequisite context is given, leaving a real gap.

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%, so the description must compensate. It implies the 'repo' argument ('one configured repo') but never clarifies the expected identifier form, and the 'vault' parameter is entirely unaddressed in both schema and 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 a specific verb and resource ('Full (re)index of one configured repo') and scopes it precisely to scanner-origin nodes/edges. The scanner-vs-manual/git-origin split implicitly separates it from siblings like index_git_coedits and reindex_paths, though no sibling is named outright.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'one configured repo' — an agent can infer this is the full-repo rebuild versus a path-scoped reindex. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no alternative is named, so the agent must infer routing from the sibling list alone.

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