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

Annotations declare this is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive, so the agent knows it's a write operation. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: "The markdown body becomes released version 1" and "Requires user_email or user_id to record the creator." These go beyond annotations. However, it doesn't cover error behaviors, permission requirements, or what the response contains (though output schema exists).

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Each sentence adds information, though the final two sentences about file uploads are slightly repetitive with 'file terms are managed in the app' and 'create file terms through the REST endpoint.' Overall efficient and well-structured.

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 tool has an output schema, the description needn't explain return values. It covers the key behavioral traits (versioning, creator recording, text-only limitation, MCP file upload restriction). The main gap is not clarifying the difference from the JSON sibling, but for a one-parameter tool with an output schema, this is fairly complete.

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% and there is only one parameter ('body'), whose schema is an opaque anyOf. The description explains that the body is markdown and becomes released version 1, and mentions required user_email/user_id fields not in the schema. This adds meaning, but the body's format is only partially clarified, and the required creator fields aren't in the schema at all, which is confusing.

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+resource: 'Create text custom terms.' This distinguishes it from the sibling 'create-custom-term_application_json' by virtue of the multipart_form_data suffix and the 'text custom terms' phrasing, though it doesn't explicitly compare itself to that sibling. Clear enough for an agent to recognize it creates custom terms.

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 notes 'Text only; file terms are managed in the app' and directs file uploads to the REST endpoint, which provides some when-to-use context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this multipart variant over the JSON sibling 'create-custom-term_application_json', leaving the multipart vs. JSON distinction unexplained.

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