rebuild_index

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the important destructive trait: it "clears the existing index and re-indexes all content from scratch." It does not cover permissions, expected duration, or whether search is unavailable during the rebuild, so it falls short of full behavioral disclosure.

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 purpose and destructive effect are front-loaded, and the sentences are mostly free of waste. The final sentence recapping the sources is largely redundant with the schema enum, keeping it from a 5.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger conditions, and the destructive nature of the operation. It leaves open operational details such as required permissions or availability during the rebuild, but nothing that would prevent a correct call.

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 100%, so the enum values and default are already documented in the schema. The description repeats the accepted sources ("emails, messages, calendar, or all sources at once") but adds no syntax or behavioral detail beyond the schema, making 3 the correct baseline.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ("Rebuild the search index") and scopes it to "one or more data sources." It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from the closest sibling, audit_index, which an agent might confuse it with.

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 states an explicit trigger condition: "Use this if search results are stale, missing, or if the index is corrupted." That is clear context for when to reach for it, though it names no alternative tool or when-not-to-use case.

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