propose_term

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions automated review (validation, deduplication, quality scoring) and links bot_id to profile, but does not cover prerequisites, authentication, or potential side effects beyond adding a term. Some behavioral details are provided but not comprehensive.

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 concise and well-structured: a brief introductory sentence followed by a clear Args list. Every sentence adds value, and the format is easy to parse.

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?

The description thoroughly covers input parameters, but does not mention output or return values. Although an output schema exists (per context), a brief note on what the tool returns (e.g., proposal ID) would improve completeness. Otherwise, the description is adequate for a tool with 7 parameters and a complex review process.

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?

The input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage). The description adds detailed explanations for all 7 parameters, including examples, character limits, and optionality, which significantly enhances understanding beyond 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 clearly states the purpose: 'Propose a new term for the AI Dictionary.' It uses a specific verb (propose) and resource (term for AI Dictionary), and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'revise_proposal' and 'propose_terms_batch' by focusing on new proposals.

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?

The description explains the submission process and mentions automated review, but it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus siblings like 'propose_terms_batch' or 'revise_proposal'. No exclusions or alternatives are noted.

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