switch_indexer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does this well by explaining the optional restart side effect and the server requirement (DOCKER_RESTART_ENABLED=true), which are non-obvious behavioral details. It does not mention whether the operation is reversible or what happens if restart is false, but the core mutation and its side effect are clearly disclosed.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds only the necessary detail about the restart flag. Every word 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?

For a straightforward mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: the operation, all three required parameters, an optional parameter, and a server-side prerequisite. It does not describe the return value or failure modes, but it provides enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and understand the restart caveat.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain each parameter. It does: 'queue profile' maps to profile, 'from one Jackett indexer' maps to old_indexer, 'to another' maps to new_indexer, and the second sentence explains restart's behavior and prerequisite. It stops short of providing allowed value formats or examples, but it adds enough meaning beyond the bare 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Repoint every feed URL in a queue profile from one Jackett indexer to another.' This clearly identifies the operation and its scope, and it is distinct enough from sibling tools like add_to_queue or list_queue that an agent can infer this is a bulk indexer-switching mutation.

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 context is implied by the purpose: you use this when you need to switch indexers across an entire queue profile. However, the description does not explicitly compare against alternatives or state when not to use it, nor does it mention prerequisite steps like checking candidates or listing indexers first.

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