trawl_reindex_pool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and 'Runs in the background' is a genuinely useful disclosure that the call is asynchronous and returns before completion. But it omits whether the operation destroys/rebuilds the existing index, whether it is idempotent, whether concurrent reindexes are blocked, and how to track progress (e.g., via trawl_ingest_status).

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed immediately by the key behavioral fact. Nothing is padding and nothing important is buried.

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 mutation-style background job with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it says nothing about cost/duration expectations, whether the index is unavailable during the run, or how to confirm completion. Given the density of overlapping pool/ingest siblings, an agent needs more to call this safely and correctly.

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%, and the schema already documents pool_name as 'Name of the client to reindex'. The description's phrasing ('a client's documents') confirms the semantic link but adds no format, naming convention, or validation detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb ('Trigger a full reindex') and resource ('a client's documents'), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from overlapping siblings such as trawl_sync_pool, trawl_load_pool, or trawl_ingest_file, leaving the agent to infer what 'reindex' means versus 'sync'.

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 gives no condition for when to use this tool and names no alternative. With siblings like trawl_sync_pool and trawl_load_pool operating on the same pools, the agent has no routing signal for choosing a full reindex over an incremental sync.

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