vector_index_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description does not state whether this is destructive (e.g., does it overwrite/rebuild the index?), whether it requires the vector index to already exist, whether it's idempotent, how long it might take, or what the output schema returns. For an operation affecting a vector index, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 efficient sentence with no wasted words. However, for a tool with no annotations and one opaque parameter, the brevity veers toward under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.

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?

The tool has no annotations, an opaque undocumented parameter, and describes a complex operation (incremental index updates with a reprocess mode). The description does not explain prerequisites (validated OKF bundles), side effects on the existing index, error conditions, or output semantics. Given the complexity of index modification, this is incomplete.

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 single parameter 'full_reprocess' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain what this boolean controls, the difference between incremental and full reprocessing, or when each mode would be appropriate. The description adds no semantic value beyond the parameter's name itself.

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 'Apply CocoIndex incremental changes from OKF files into sqlite-vec' which identifies the verb (apply), resource (CocoIndex changes), and target (sqlite-vec). It's reasonably clear but doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like vector_search or knowledge tools — the description doesn't clarify what makes this tool unique among the vector/index-related siblings.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., that OKF files must first be validated or built via okf_validate_bundle/okf_rebuild_bundle siblings), nor does it explain when a full_reprocess would be needed instead of incremental application.

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