okf_rebuild_bundle

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Regenerate' implies potentially destructive/overwriting behavior, but the description doesn't state whether existing projection data is replaced, whether it's idempotent, what happens to the bundle during regeneration, or any side effects on the account's mail data. This is a significant transparency gap for a rebuild operation.

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?

Single sentence, zero waste, front-loaded with the action verb. Descriptions this short are generally appropriately concise when schema and annotations cover the rest, which they don't here, but conciseness itself is fine at 4.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, but the tool is a rebuild operation with no annotations, no usage guidance, and unexplained domain terminology ('OKF projection'). For a potentially destructive maintenance operation, the description should explain prerequisites, side effects, and how it fits in the sync workflow. This is under-specified for its complexity.

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?

There is only one parameter (account_id) and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries responsibility for parameter meaning. The description mentions 'the canonical SQLite records' but doesn't explain how account_id scopes the rebuild or whether the account must already exist/be synced. With a single self-explanatory parameter, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, but the description adds nothing beyond the 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 states a specific action ('Regenerate the OKF projection') on a specific resource (SQLite records). However, 'OKF projection' is domain jargon that isn't explained, and the description doesn't distinguish this from the sibling okf_validate_bundle or clarify how rebuilding differs from validating. Purpose is stated but not fully accessible to an agent unfamiliar with the domain.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not explain when a rebuild is needed, whether it's destructive, whether it should follow validation, or when okf_validate_bundle should be used instead. The tool appears to be part of a sync/rebuild workflow but gives no usage context.

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