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

Annotations flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description goes well beyond them by explaining the consequence: the new version immediately becomes the released version used by new agreements while existing versions stay immutable. It also discloses the publisher-recording requirement and a hard capability limit (no file uploads over MCP).

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then release semantics, then the identity requirement and file-upload caveat. No redundancy against the title or schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. The remaining gap is sibling routing: it does not clarify when to create a new custom term versus a new version of an existing one.

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 moderate (~50%), but the description adds meaning: body is markdown text, and the creator identity must be supplied via user_email or user_id. The schema itself already documents the UUID path param and per-field semantics, so little is left ambiguous.

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 and resource ("Publish a new markdown version of text custom terms") and explicitly names the boundary against the file-based variant, directing file publishing to REST. An agent can distinguish this from the multipart sibling without opening either schema.

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 clear conditions: use this for markdown text terms, not for file uploads (use the REST multipart endpoint), and supply user_email or user_id as publisher. It lacks a distinction from create-custom-term_application_json (creating a brand-new term rather than a version), which is the nearest sibling an agent could confuse it with.

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