scrape_full

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the critical destructive trait ('wipe all indexed data') plus the re-fetch/reindex pipeline. It leaves operational details unstated: expected duration, whether the run is blocking, and any auth/permission requirements for a full re-index.

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?

Two tight sentences: the destructive pipeline first, the usage condition second. No filler and everything is 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?

For a two-optional-parameter, no-output-schema tool this covers the essentials, especially the data-destroying nature. The only real gap is that it never signals this is a heavy, long-running job, which an agent deciding between it and an incremental scrape would want to know.

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 both parameters (concurrency, language_filter) are fully described in the schema, including defaults and the enum values. The description adds nothing about them, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Names a specific operation ('Full refresh') and enumerates the three concrete steps: wipe indexed data, re-fetch the sitemap from architect.salesforce.com, and re-scrape/reindex every page. The 'full' framing cleanly separates it from the scrape_incremental sibling without needing to name it.

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 states when to use it ('initial setup or when you want a clean slate'), giving a clear triggering context. It does not, however, name scrape_incremental as the alternative for the non-clean-slate case, so the routing is implied via the name contrast rather than stated.

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