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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: versions are immutable and only the name is mutable, with content changes handled by a different tool. It does not explain permissions, response, or why a rename is flagged destructive, but the added context is real.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, scope constraint front-loaded before the alternative. Nothing could be removed without losing routing information.

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 the description covers scope plus the sibling alternative for a 2-param mutation tool. Remaining gaps (id/path details, permission expectations) are minor rather than blocking.

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?

Reported schema description coverage is 0%, so the description is expected to compensate for the two parameters. It implies only the name changes, which partially clarifies the body parameter, but says nothing about the id pathParam or value formats. Baseline 3.

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 ("Rename custom terms") and immediately contrasts the scope with the sibling create-custom-term-version. An agent can tell it apart from the other update-* and create-*-version tools without opening a 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?

Explicitly names the alternative for content edits ("content changes go through create-custom-term-version instead"), which gives a clear routing condition. It stops short of stating general when-to-use prerequisites (e.g., what state the terms must be in), so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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