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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), so the description does not need to restate mutability. It does add genuinely useful behavior beyond that: 'Only the fields you provide change' discloses partial-update semantics, telling the agent omitted fields are preserved rather than cleared. It stops short of noting permissions or the tension with destructiveHint=true.

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 sentences, no filler, and the behavioral constraint is front-loaded right after the purpose statement. Nothing is wasted.

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 no output schema, the description is adequate but thin: it never says what a successful update returns, whether id must reference an existing term, or how an empty aliases array is treated. Annotations carry the safety load, but the operational picture is incomplete.

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. The description's partial-update sentence adds a small amount of semantic value about how optional params behave, but no field-level meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (update) and resource (dictionary term), and the name distinguishes it from create_dictionary_term / delete_dictionary_term / archive_dictionary_term siblings. It does not need to explain those siblings because the naming convention already separates them.

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?

No guidance on when this tool is appropriate versus archive_dictionary_term, delete_dictionary_term, or get_dictionary_term, and no mention of prerequisites such as required id lookup. The only hint is implicit patch semantics.

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