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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description goes further: it explains the replace-not-merge behavior ('the term list and any flags you pass overwrite the old values'), names the required Reviewer role, and discloses the underlying PUT endpoint. This tells the agent exactly what data is lost on invocation.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the WRITE marker and the destructive-replace warning before the role and prerequisite details. No filler or restated field documentation.

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 7-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the critical missing pieces: mutation semantics, permission requirement, read-before-write workflow, and the API surface. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 the schema carries the baseline load. The description still adds non-obvious semantics: that the term array and any flag parameters overwrite prior values rather than patching them, which changes how the agent should populate optional fields.

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?

Opens with the operation class (WRITE) plus a concrete verb+resource: replacing the content of one glossary term. It is immediately distinguishable from localazy_create_glossary_term and localazy_get_glossary_term, which it names as the read counterpart.

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?

Gives a required precondition (Reviewer role) and a sequencing instruction (read the term first with localazy_get_glossary_term), which routes the agent to the right sibling. It does not state when to prefer this over creation or what to do when the term does not exist, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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