scry_sink

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and excels: it details atomicity, schema preservation, FTS trigger behavior, that disk markers are untouched, and the mandatory user confirmation. These go well beyond basic read/write tagging.

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 well-structured: an evocative first line, clear technical details, a notable requirement (confirmation), parameter explanation, and return value. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, the description covers purpose, tables affected, transactional behavior, side effects, parameter, and return format. An output schema exists to further detail the return structure, making this entirely sufficient.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: the sole parameter `then_surface` is explained in detail, including its effect and equivalent operation ('reset + reindex'). This adds essential meaning beyond the schema's default value.

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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Lower the index back to disk-only state' and 'Truncates all scry index tables'. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes itself from the sibling `scry_surface` by offering the `then_surface` parameter to combine reset and rebuild.

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 description implies when to use (to reset the index while preserving disk markers) and mentions the need for user confirmation. It does not explicitly compare to other siblings like `scry_scrub` or `scry_db_health`, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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