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

Annotations already declare this is non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: it is 'Free', merges by term unless mode is replace, replaces aliases word-for-word, and enforces limits of 'Up to 200 terms, 10 aliases each.' It leaves the full effect of mode=replace somewhat ambiguous.

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 front-loaded with 'Free. Save...' and packs useful examples and limits into one paragraph. It is dense but mostly earns its length, though the parenthetical example about term 'po' aliases ['pues'] is slightly distracting.

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 nested glossary-save operation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, merge/replace behavior, alias handling, doNotTranslate, and size limits. It is not fully complete because note is undocumented and replace-mode semantics are not fully spelled out.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does for term, aliases, doNotTranslate, and mode with examples and limits. The optional note field is not explained in the description, and field length limits are left entirely to the schema.

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 and resource: 'Save brand names, product names, people, slang and dialect spellings' so future transcriptions recognize them. It clearly distinguishes saving glossary entries from retrieving or deleting them through the action and examples, though it never names a sibling tool explicitly.

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 use case is clear: save terms 'so future transcriptions get them right.' It gives a strong positive context but does not explicitly say when not to use this tool or name alternatives such as get_glossary or delete_glossary.

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