create_indexer_action_by_name

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read, non-destructive, idempotent operation, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavior by warning that body fields must be discovered from the matching GET or /schema endpoint before constructing the payload. It does not contradict the annotations, though it does little else to describe side effects or authorization requirements.

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 mostly front-loaded, with no fluff or repeated schema information. The misleading 'Create Indexer.' line and the bare Args list keep this from being a polished, high-quality structure.

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 tool with a dynamic body schema and many closely related siblings, the description is too thin: it omits the target of 'name', the nature of the action, and when to use this endpoint. The instruction to consult GET/schema is helpful, but it does not make the definition complete enough for reliable selection and invocation.

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 clarifies that name is a path parameter and that body is the request payload whose expected fields are dynamic and should be looked up first. However, it never explains what 'name' identifies (indexer name vs action name), which is a key gap.

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 opens with 'Create Indexer.' and gives the endpoint POST /api/v3/indexer/action/{name}, which strongly implies an action performed on an indexer, not creation of an indexer. Because there is a sibling create_indexer, this statement misleads an agent about what the tool actually does and fails to distinguish the action operation.

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 provides a procedural hint to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint before calling, but it never says when this tool should be chosen over create_indexer, create_indexer_test, or the other indexer-related create tools. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, leaving usage selection to inference.

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