create_indexerproxy

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no extra behavioral detail such as side effects, auth requirements, or retry behavior. It is neutral and does not contradict annotations.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded. It states the action, the endpoint, and the two parameters in a compact list. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or 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?

For a create operation with a complex nested body and an output schema, the description provides a complete strategy: consult the schema endpoint for the body fields. The force_save parameter is left unexplained, but it is optional and defaults to null, so the gap is minor. Overall, an agent has enough guidance to invoke this correctly.

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. It explains that body is the request payload and directs the agent to the GET or /schema endpoint for its fields. However, force_save is only labeled as a query parameter with no explanation of its meaning or effect, leaving part of the parameter semantics unresolved.

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 and resource: 'Create IndexerProxy.' It also includes the HTTP endpoint POST /api/v1/indexerproxy, which makes the action unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like create_indexerproxy_test or create_indexerproxy_action_by_name, but the name and basic action are clear enough.

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 gives a concrete prerequisite: read the matching GET or the /schema endpoint to learn the expected body fields. This tells the agent how to prepare the call. It doesn't mention when to prefer this tool over its test/testall siblings, but the core usage context is clear.

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