aruba_sync_invoice_index

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

The description adds that it 'writes only to ARUBA_INDEX_DB_PATH and never modifies Aruba,' which clarifies the non-destructive nature beyond annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). However, no information about authentication, rate limits, or exact write behavior is given.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, with the main purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. Every word contributes value, and there is no redundant or verbose language.

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 complexity (7 parameters, no schema descriptions, and an output schema not explained), the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, what 'sync' entails (full or incremental), or how parameters affect behavior. Annotations partially cover safety, but parameter guidance is missing.

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 description provides no explanation for the 7 parameters (direction, date_from, date_to, etc.). Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it fails to do so. Parameters remain opaque.

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 purpose: 'Build/update a local SQLite index from read-only Aruba GET data.' This is a specific verb-resource combination and distinguishes it from siblings, which are mostly query or retrieval tools.

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?

The description implies the tool is for indexing data locally, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like aruba_search_invoices or aruba_get_index_stats. No guidance on when not to use or prerequisites is provided.

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