sync_project_embeddings

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

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose side effects such as cost, idempotency, or whether existing embeddings are overwritten. 'Refresh' suggests mutation, but details are lacking.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and object. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 potential side effects of building/refreshing embeddings and unspecified output, the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter semantics, return value information, and any caveats about execution.

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?

The schema provides only types and defaults; the description does not explain project_id or force. project_id is self-evident, but force's meaning (e.g., force rebuild even if unchanged) is not clarified, leaving ambiguity.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('Build or refresh') and target ('derived EntityEmbedding nodes for a project graph'), making its purpose specific and distinguishable from sibling search/status tools.

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 for building or refreshing embeddings but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like semantic_search_project or get_vector_status. No direct comparison or conditions are provided.

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