Upsert Documents

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: existing _id documents are replaced (matching destructiveHint), Pinecone embeds text so vectors must not be sent, non-schema fields become filterable metadata, and newly upserted records have eventual visibility with retry guidance. These are critical operational details not captured in the 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?

Front-loads the core action in the first sentence and then layers necessary constraints without filler. Every sentence provides a distinct operational fact (embedding, schema discovery, metadata, replacement, eventual consistency), so the length is justified.

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 destructive upsert with annotations covering safety/idempotency and full schema coverage, the description supplies the missing behavioral context: replacement semantics, embedding requirements, metadata handling, and indexing delay. No output schema exists, but the description gives enough for correct 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters; the description adds meaning by clarifying that documents need _id plus plain text in embed fields, that vectors must not be sent, and that non-schema fields become metadata. It does not expand on namespace or llm_model/provider beyond the schema, but the added document semantics justify above baseline.

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?

States a specific verb ('Insert or update') and resource ('documents in a Pinecone document index'), with explicit scoping to indexes created by create-document-index. It distinguishes this from record-oriented siblings by naming document indexes and referencing describe-index for schema discovery.

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?

Clearly conditions use on a document index (one created with create-document-index) and instructs calling describe-index first. It does not explicitly compare against upsert-records or other siblings, but the resource scoping implies when this tool applies.

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