update_index

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses the incremental nature, the addition of missing files, the removal of deleted ones, and the absence of re-embedding. This covers the key behavioral traits, including the destructive aspect of dropping files. It does not mention error handling or side effects, but for a tool of this scope, it is sufficiently transparent.

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 sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the core concept ('Incremental update') and then specifies the exact actions. Every word contributes to meaning, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the operation's scope (missing files, deleted files, no re-embed) and implies a maintenance context. It does not specify whether the operation is synchronous or what the output contains, but given the output schema exists and the operation is simple, these gaps are minor.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters because there are none. It correctly focuses on behavior rather than arguments, and the schema already confirms no parameters are required.

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 specific verb ('update') with a clear resource ('index') and precise scope ('missing files, drop deleted ones'). It distinguishes itself from sibling search and analysis tools by focusing on index maintenance rather than querying. The behavior is unambiguous and action-oriented.

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 (when you need to sync the index incrementally) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It does not say 'use this instead of a full re-index' or reference sibling tools. The implied context is clear enough for a simple tool, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is provided.

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