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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the write/safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavior — the markdown body becomes 'released version 1' and file uploads are unsupported over MCP — but it also asserts 'Requires user_email or user_id to record the creator,' which is not reflected in the schema and muddies the picture.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence adds something. The 'Text only; file terms are managed in the app' and the final REST-endpoint sentence partially overlap, costing a little efficiency.

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 not be described. Coverage of the text-only constraint and versioning behavior is good, but the dangling user_email/user_id requirement is a real gap — it implies required inputs the schema does not expose, leaving the agent unsure how to satisfy the creator requirement.

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 single 'body' property is an opaque anyOf, so the description must compensate: it explains the markdown body becomes version 1, which adds real meaning. But it references user_email/user_id as if required even though they are absent from the schema (additionalProperties=false), creating misleading parameter guidance.

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 ('Create text custom terms') and clarifies scope by contrasting text terms with file terms. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling create-custom-term_application_json, so an agent cannot easily tell the two apart beyond the name suffix.

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 use/when-not guidance: use this for text terms, and file terms are not supported over MCP — instead create them via the REST endpoint with multipart/form-data. It stops short of naming the application/json sibling as the alternative for non-multipart contexts.

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