create_indexerproxy_action_by_name

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it is a POST action and that the body expects fields matching a GET or the /schema endpoint, but it does not disclose side effects, required configuration state, or response behavior. The description does not contradict the 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 short and structured: one title line, the endpoint, and an Args block. It front-loads the essential action and endpoint. It could be tighter by removing the redundant 'Args:' line, but overall it is efficient.

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 that the body is a free-form object with no schema details, the guidance to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint is important, but the description lacks information about what the action actually performs, what a successful response contains, or any special behavior. 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 schema itself defines name as a string and body as a free-form object with additionalProperties true. The description adds minimal semantics: name is a path parameter and body is the request payload that should be read from a matching GET or /schema. This is helpful but does not fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Create IndexerProxy' states a verb and a resource, so it is clear enough at a high level, but it does not distinguish this action-by-name variant from the sibling create_indexerproxy, which also creates IndexerProxy. The endpoint path is shown, but the agent must infer that this is the action variant that takes a name path parameter.

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 says 'POST /api/v1/indexerproxy/action/{name}' and 'Args:', which implies usage, but it gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus create_indexerproxy, create_indexerproxy_test, or create_indexerproxy_testall. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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