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

Annotations only say it is a non-readonly, non-destructive, non-open-world mutation; the description adds substantial context beyond that: what a public viewer sees, that it writes a line in project history, the authorization requirements, and the exact return artifacts ('script', 'mark', 'iframe'). This is rich disclosure an agent could not get from the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose before parameters, alternatives, and permissions. The single dense paragraph with heavy em-dash and parenthetical nesting makes it harder to scan than necessary, but nearly every clause carries information and nothing is filler.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description fully covers the return value (the generated embed code variants), side effects (history entry), permissions, and optional-parameter defaults. An agent has everything needed to call 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 coverage is already 100%, so baseline would be 3, but the description adds real meaning: 'term' accepts its word or any spelling, 'sites' takes comma-separated https origins with 'none is any', and 'days' 1-3650 with 'none is until removed'. It also cross-references list_terms for obtaining 'id'.

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 and resource: puts a confirmed term on other sites as an embeddable link, and describes exactly what the embed exposes (word, definition with formulas, source location while public). It distinguishes itself from the sibling create_embed_set explicitly ('For many terms of one article, create_embed_set gives one link for all of 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?

Gives a clear condition for use (one confirmed term) and names the alternative (create_embed_set for many terms of one article). Permissions are stated ('Only for somebody who may write in the project and open the term's source'). It does not contrast with the other embed siblings (create_wiki_embed, create_claim_embed), but the resource distinction is implicit.

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