create_indexer

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

Annotations already carry the behavioral profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds virtually nothing beyond the raw endpoint and one metadata pointer; it does not explain what force_save does, what side effects creation has, or any auth/requirements. For a mutation tool with an open body, this is thin.

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 short and front-loaded with the purpose and endpoint. Minor waste exists: 'Args: force_save: Query parameter' adds no value over the schema, and the body line could be tighter. Overall it is efficient and scannable.

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 are covered elsewhere. The body is adequately handled via the schema-endpoint pointer. The main gap is force_save, which has no meaningful explanation despite being a nullable boolean query parameter with likely behavioral impact. For a 2-param tool this is adequate but not complete.

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 'body' it does add practical value by directing the agent to the schema endpoint for field discovery, which is essential given additionalProperties:true. But 'force_save' is described only as 'Query parameter'—a bare restatement of the schema with zero semantic meaning, and it does not flag that the schema already shows it is nullable/boolean.

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 clear verb+resource ('Create Indexer') plus the full endpoint. It is unambiguous about what is being created. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like create_indexerproxy, create_indexer_test, or create_indexer_action_by_name, which an agent might confuse it with aiming for the same create path.

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?

It instructs the agent to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint first to discover expected body fields, which is practical for an open-ended body object (additionalProperties: true). But it gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling create_* tools, and no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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