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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds value beyond that by stating the permission requirement for add/update/delete and by pointing to fenbs_get_context for the full read view. It does not elaborate on what delete removes, but the annotation carries that.

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 resource definition is front-loaded, followed by a compact action-to-parameter map and a short usage rule. Sentences are dense but each carries information. Slightly cluttered by packing four action signatures into one line, but no real waste.

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 7-parameter tool with 29% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the action-parameter mapping, permission requirement, when to add, board-vs-project scoping, and the read sibling. Annotations carry the safety profile. It is close to complete, with only minor gaps in parameter constraints and return expectations.

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 only 29%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it maps parameters to each action (list: project, q; add: term, definition, alsoCalled, project; update: id plus any of those; delete: id). This clarifies which fields apply where, which the schema alone does not. It stops short of explaining value formats or constraints.

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 resource (the project glossary: the words a project uses and what each means here) and enumerates the four actions it supports, so an agent understands scope immediately. It even names the sibling that surfaces the full glossary (fenbs_get_context), aiding differentiation. Not quite a 5 since it never explicitly frames this as the management counterpart to read-only glossary views.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use guidance for add ('when a term has a meaning here that a newcomer, or the next assistant, would get wrong') and notes that a project's words and the whole board's both apply. It also flags that add/update/delete require task-change permission. Missing explicit when-not guidance for list/update/delete, so not a full 5.

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