Add Entry to Vector Index

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the name and title—it doesn't say whether the operation fails if the entry is already indexed, what permissions are needed, or how it handles concurrency. With annotations present, the description adds almost no value beyond structured fields.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool and 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 write tool with two undocumented parameters and no parameter descriptions in the schema, the description is not complete enough. It lacks usage guidance and parameter semantics, which are critical for correct invocation. The presence of an output schema and annotations mitigates some complexity but does not fill the gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions 'a specific entry', vaguely hinting at entry_id, and says nothing about project_number or the optional nature of both parameters. This leaves a significant gap for an agent to infer correct usage.

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 ('Add') and resource ('a specific entry to the semantic search vector index'), making the core action clear. It distinguishes from bulk operations like rebuild_vector_index by specifying 'a specific entry', but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling team_add_to_vector_index or name alternatives, so it is not a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like rebuild_vector_index or team_add_to_vector_index. The description only states what it does, not when it should be chosen, what prerequisites exist, or any exclusions.

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