create_indexer

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (idempotent, non-destructive, not read-only). The description contributes no extra behavioral context beyond the action itself; it does not explain side effects, permissions, or the meaning/impact of force_save. There is no contradiction, but the description adds zero transparency beyond 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 lean, with a clear endpoint line and a compact args list. Every sentence is purposeful, with no fluff or redundancy, making it highly scannable for an agent. The structure is consistent and front-loaded.

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 the free-form body object and the large sibling tool set, the description is under-specified. It omits the meaning of force_save, any schema for the body, and any guidance on when to choose this tool over test/action variants. The pointer to GET/schema is a useful survival hint, but the description alone does not equip an agent to correctly construct a request.

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 coverage is 0% for descriptions, so the description must compensate. It labels body as 'Request payload' and points to the GET/schema endpoint for field discovery, which is helpful but still leaves the actual content unspecified. force_save is only noted as a 'Query parameter' with no explanation of its purpose or effect, offering little semantic value.

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 ('Create') and resource ('Indexer') and includes the explicit POST endpoint, which firmly distinguishes it as the direct creation operation. However, it does not differentiate from related tools like create_indexer_test or create_indexer_action_by_name, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only operational hint is to read the GET or /schema endpoint first, which is a prerequisite rather than usage context. There is no mention of preferring this over create_indexer_test or other sibling tools.

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