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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful patch semantics ('only the fields you provide change'), which tells the agent that omitted fields are preserved. It does not explain what makes the operation destructive, whether clearing a field is possible, or any permission requirements.

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 with zero filler; the core action is front-loaded and the patch semantic follows immediately. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 a four-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is minimally adequate. It could do more for a destructiveHint=true update: explaining whether fields can be cleared, what happens to aliases when omitted, and how failures are surfaced. No output schema exists, so return values would be helpful context but are not required.

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 100%, so all four parameters (id, word, aliases, definition) are already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The partial-update sentence mildly informs how optional parameters behave but adds no format or constraint detail 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 names a specific verb (Update) and resource (dictionary term), so an agent can distinguish it from create_dictionary_term, get_dictionary_term, and delete_dictionary_term. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from archive/unarchive or state what updating accomplishes beyond the verb.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus siblings like archive_dictionary_term, delete_dictionary_term, or create_dictionary_term. The only guidance offered is the partial-update clause, which is a behavioral detail rather than a usage condition.

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