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

Beyond the annotations' destructiveHint, it discloses that a written term is confirmed immediately, that omitted fields are preserved on change, that 'variants' fully replaces existing spellings, that an empty 'source' removes it, and that access is gated by write permission and AI plan. This is rich, specific behavioral context.

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-loads the core actions before adding caveats, and every sentence carries operational detail. It is dense and could be split for readability, but it is not padded.

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?

Covers the add/change/decide flows, replacement semantics, source handling, permission gating, and plan gating for a 9-parameter mutation tool with no output schema. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning for 'id', 'state', 'variants', and 'source' (replacement semantics, examples, empty-string behavior) beyond the schema. Other parameters like 'kind', 'name', 'place', 'project', and 'definition' rely largely on the schema descriptions.

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 specific actions (add, change, confirm/reject) on the resource 'term' and distinguishes adding from changing via 'id'. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like define_term or decide_terms, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Explains when to omit 'id' to add a term, when to use 'state' to decide a proposed term, and that omitted fields remain unchanged on updates. It also states prerequisites (write membership, AI plan), but does not name alternative tools or say when not to use this one.

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