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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds the material consequence: the new version immediately becomes the released version used by new agreements, while existing versions stay immutable. That is real impact disclosure beyond the safety flags, though it omits reversibility details.

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 action, then impact, then constraint. No filler, though the final sentence about file uploads is slightly tangential to the core operation and could be tightened.

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, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the versioning semantics and the MCP-vs-REST boundary, which is what an agent most needs; only the opaque body payload remains under-specified.

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 0% and the body's anyOf is fully opaque, so the description carries the burden. It names the identity requirement (user_email or user_id) and implies markdown content, but does not enumerate or structure the body fields an agent must send, leaving a meaningful gap.

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 with scope: 'Publish a new markdown version of text custom terms.' The 'text custom terms' qualifier distinguishes it from file-based siblings, though the deliberate mismatch with the tool's own name (multipart_form_data) creates friction for selection. Clear enough to route correctly.

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 explicit when-not guidance: file uploads are unsupported over MCP and should go through the REST multipart endpoint instead. It also states the requirement of user_email or user_id to record the publisher. No guidance on when this tool is preferred over create-custom-term_multipart_form_data other than the text/file distinction.

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