update_indexer_by_id

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

Annotations already flag idempotency, write-only behavior, and non-destructiveness. The description adds the PUT method and the explicit instruction to consult GET/schema first, which indicates the body must conform to the resource's shapeags; this goes beyond the annotations and helps an agent understand what to send. It does not explain force_save, but the core mutation semantics are covered.

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-structured: it opens with the HTTP endpoint, then lists args in a concise 'Args' section. Every sentence serves a purpose, and there is no fluff.

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?

The description covers the endpoint and tells the agent how to discover body fields, which is a smart workaround for an open-ended schema. However, it omits any detail about force_save and does not clarify whether the body should be a full replacement or a partial update, leaving a couple of important uncertainties.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters, but it only labels id as path, body as request payload, and force_save as query parameter. The one meaningful addition is the tip that body fields should come from GET/schema output, yet force_save remains completely unexplained, which is a significant gap for a parameter that may control update behavior.

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' and includes the endpoint PUT /api/v3/indexer/{id}, making the action and resource clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from update_indexer_bulk by noting it operates on a single id, but the {id} path parameter implies that scope, so it is still sufficiently clear.

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 provides a useful precondition – read the matching GET or /schema endpoint first to learn expected fields – but it does not state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like update_indexer_bulk. No exclusion or selection criteria are given, leaving the choice mostly to the agent's inference.

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