update_source_index

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

Discloses that the tool is expensive, blocks until complete, and that the watcher normally handles syncing. These traits go beyond annotations (readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint true, destructiveHint false) and provide crucial operational context.

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: first line gives purpose, followed by context, guidance, warning, then Args. It is concise but includes some repetition (Args section mirrors schema). Still efficient and front-loaded.

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 presence of an output schema and annotations, the description covers intent, when to use, caveats, and parameter details. It is complete for an AI agent to decide when and how to invoke the tool.

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%, and the description largely restates schema info for both parameters (source and force). It adds minor context like using 'list_sources' for source names, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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's action ('Force a full rebuild of a specific source's index') and the specific resource ('source's index'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_rag_status' by noting the watcher normally keeps the index in sync.

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 tells when to use (after complex merge, bulk rename, drift detection) and when not to (not routinely, expensive, blocks). Also advises checking 'get_rag_status' first and using 'list_sources' to discover names.

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