opensolr_create_index

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does mention that the index is 'vector-enabled' and describes location options plus the ability to request additional regions, which is useful. But it does not disclose whether creation is synchronous, what happens if an index with the same name already exists, whether it is irreversible, or any permission/authorization requirements. These are significant gaps for a mutation 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?

The description is three sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core operation, then supplies parameter context, and ends with an actionable support note. Every sentence adds value and there is no repetition.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description lacks important context for a create operation: it does not mention whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate index names, whether creation is immediate or asynchronous, or how the location affects data residency. It also does not specify any prerequisites or error scenarios. Given the tool's simplicity and absence of annotations, the description is not fully complete for safe autonomous invocation.

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 for the absence of parameter documentation. It explicitly explains the location parameter by listing valid regions and pointing to opensolr_vector_regions, which is helpful. However, it never explains the 'index' parameter—its format, allowed characters, uniqueness constraints, or whether it is a display name or an identifier. The description only partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new vector-enabled Opensolr index.' This clearly states the tool's purpose and differentiates it from sibling tools such as opensolr_list_indexes, opensolr_search, and opensolr_add_documents. The 'vector-enabled' qualifier adds further specificity without ambiguity.

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 intended use is implied by the verb 'Create' and the resource 'index,' making it clear this is for creating an index rather than listing, deleting, or searching. However, the description provides no explicit 'use this when...' guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no conditions under which a different tool should be chosen. The location notes give context but not operational selection criteria.

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