Reprocess documents

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly=false, non-idempotent), the description discloses two important behaviors: the operation is queued asynchronously and existing metadata is preserved. This adds value that annotations alone do not convey.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main operation and a clarifying example plus key behavioral caveats. No filler or duplication of schema details.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what an agent needs: what happens, when to use it, and that it is asynchronous with metadata preservation. The array parameter is already fully documented in the schema.

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%: the single documents parameter is well described in the schema, including the requirement for an explicit list. The tool description adds no parameter-level syntax beyond referring to 'given documents', so the schema carries the burden and baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific operation — re-running OCR and archive generation — on a concrete resource (documents) and gives a realistic trigger ('after changing OCR settings'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rotate_documents or update_document by functional intent.

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?

Provides clear usage context with the OCR-settings example and states the asynchronous queueing behavior. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the action is distinctive enough that an agent can infer when to call it.

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