index_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of disclosing side effects and constraints. It only mentions the private-workspace scope but does not explain whether re-indexing overwrites existing data, whether duplicates are rejected, what permissions are needed, or what response to expect.

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 short and front-loaded with the core verb, which is good for scanning. However, the brevity reflects missing substance rather than efficient coverage of all relevant information.

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 tool with three required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It provides useful context about private-workspace scoping but omits parameter semantics, operation behavior, and return conventions.

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 zero description coverage for all three required parameters, so the description must compensate. It weakly hints that 'sections' correspond to extracted passages, but it never explains session_id, name, or the expected structure of sections, leaving the agent without enough information.

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 states a specific verb ('Index'), a resource type ('extracted document passages'), and a clear scope ('one private workspace'). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like list_documents and delete_document because the operation type is explicit and different.

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?

There is no explicit statement about when to choose this tool over alternatives. However, the intended usage is reasonably implied by the verb 'Index' and the sibling tool names, which makes the guidance adequate but not explicit.

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