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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=true), so the description's added context is valuable: it discloses the Reviewer role requirement, the 1,000-term project cap, the underlying endpoint, and that the term takes effect for translators and Localazy AI going forward.

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 description is four short sentences with the write operation front-loaded. Every sentence carries useful information (action, quota, role, effect, endpoint) with no filler or repetition.

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 create tool with full schema coverage and existing annotations, the description supplies the key prerequisites and limits an agent needs. It does not cover duplicate-term behavior or what a successful response contains, which is a minor gap given there is no output schema.

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 six parameters are already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema and its phrase 'one term' does not convey the per-language array structure documented in 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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'add one term to a project's glossary', and scopes it with a per-project limit. It is clear on its own, but it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling `localazy_update_glossary_term` or states what makes creation different from updating.

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?

Usage is implied by the 'WRITE: add one term' framing and the prerequisite that it needs the Reviewer role, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives, no when-not-to-use, and no routing to `localazy_update_glossary_term` or `localazy_list_glossary`.

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