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

Beyond the annotations, the description explains key behavior: the markdown body becomes released version 1, and a creator must be recorded via user_email or user_id. It also clearly states the text-only limitation and points to the REST multipart endpoint for file terms.

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 and appropriately sized for a create operation. There is some redundancy around file-term handling, but the extra sentences carry useful routing information rather than noise.

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?

Given the nested schema, 100% parameter description coverage, existing output schema, and annotations, the description supplies the remaining critical context: text-only scope, creator requirement, released-version behavior, and the file-term alternative endpoint.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents the nested parameters. The description reinforces the creator requirement and the markdown body’s version-1 behavior, but does not add substantial syntax or format details beyond 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create text custom terms.' It also distinguishes this tool from file-term creation by stating that file uploads are not supported over MCP and should use the REST multipart/form-data endpoint instead.

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 makes the primary usage context clear: create text custom terms via JSON, with file terms handled elsewhere. It also names the alternative path for file terms, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling version-creation or update tools.

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