update_indexer_by_id

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the guidance to read the GET or /schema endpoint first, which is useful context about expected body structure. It doesn't describe side effects or error behavior, but annotations carry the main burden.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action and endpoint. The Args list is terse and each line earns its place, though the body explanation could be slightly more specific.

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 an update operation with an output schema and annotations covering idempotency and safety, the description is mostly adequate. The main gap is the body parameter: with additionalProperties:true and 0% schema coverage, an agent would need to make a separate GET call to understand the payload, which the description does point to. This is a reasonable but not complete solution.

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 names all three parameters (id, body, force_save) and gives one-line explanations, but the body parameter is a generic object with additionalProperties:true, and the description only says to read the GET or /schema endpoint. This is minimal compensation for a completely undocumented schema.

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 'Update Indexer' with the HTTP method and path, clearly identifying the resource and action. It distinguishes from siblings like create_indexer and delete_indexer_by_id, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 usage by showing the PUT endpoint and mentioning to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint first. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_indexer_bulk, but the singular 'by_id' and path parameter make the context reasonably clear.

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