bubble_suggest_indexes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds context about the inputs it analyzes (schema and record counts), but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as whether it makes external calls or how recommendations are generated. This meets the lower bar set by comprehensive 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?

A single, well-structured sentence that conveys purpose, input, and output without redundancy. Every word earns its place, and the information is 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 tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description provides adequate context by stating the analysis targets and the nature of the output. It could be slightly more explicit about the return format, but the core purpose is fully communicated. Annotations handle safety concerns, so fewer caveats are needed.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter semantics. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. It clearly conveys what the tool does with its implicit inputs (schema and record counts), which is sufficient.

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 a specific verb ('Analyses') and resource ('Bubble.io schema and record counts'), with a defined outcome ('suggest fields that would benefit from database indexes'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bubble_get_schema or bubble_field_usage by focusing on index recommendations.

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 purpose implies usage when index suggestions are needed, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or mention of alternatives. It does not explain how this tool complements or differs from siblings, so the usage context is only implied.

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