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

The description goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that existing terms are matched by exact text and replaced, that terms are protected in later translations, that changes take up to 30 seconds to apply, and that there are account-wide limits. The destructiveHint=true annotation is fully supported rather than contradicted.

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 five sentences are dense but each adds meaningful information: the upsert behavior, the protected-term effect, replacement semantics, limits, and propagation latency. The core purpose is front-loaded and no filler is present.

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?

For an add/update tool with an output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: how terms behave downstream, how updates happen, constraints (2,000 terms, 200 characters), and eventual consistency. No significant selection or invocation information is missing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the semantic load. It explains that terms are matched by exact text, that translations.he/.en/.ru are used for the target language when set, and that sending an existing term replaces its translations and note. This is strong compensation, though it does not describe the note field's exact purpose.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Add protected terms to the account, or update existing ones (matched by exact term text).' This clearly separates it from the sibling delete_term and list_terms tools and explains that it is an upsert rather than a simple append.

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 states exactly when to call it: to add or update protected account terms, with updates triggered by exact term text. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for deletion or listing, but the context is clear enough that an agent can route to add_terms correctly.

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