update_indexerproxy_by_id

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

With annotations already providing readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, the description's 'Update IndexerProxy' is not in conflict and the route line adds a small amount of extra context via the schema lookup advice. It does not detail side effects or force_save behavior, so it stops at adequate rather than strong.

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 well-ordered: one-line purpose, explicit route, then a tight argument list with no filler. Every line earns its place.

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 3-parameter mutation with an output schema and annotations, the description covers all arguments at a role level and directs the agent to the schema/GET endpoint for the complex body. It is slightly incomplete on force_save semantics and on what a successful update returns, but the output schema reduces that burden.

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 property descriptions are 0%, so the description partially compensates by labeling id as a path parameter, body as the request payload, and force_save as a query parameter, while advising how to discover body fields. The only notable gap is no elaboration of force_save's meaning.

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 explicitly states the operation and resource: 'Update IndexerProxy' backed by the PUT /api/v1/indexerproxy/{id} route, which ties it to a specific by-id mutation. This is specific enough to distinguish it from the related create/delete/list siblings for IndexerProxy and for other resource types.

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 gives concrete guidance to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint first so the agent can discover the expected body fields before calling. It does not enumerate exclusions or when-not-to-use alternatives, but the context is clear and actionable.

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