add_glossary_term

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Add or update' but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether updates overwrite existing terms, what happens on duplicate terms, or any side effects. The description is minimal beyond the action.

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 very short—two lines plus an argument list. It avoids unnecessary words and front-loads the action. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., using bullet points for args), but the current format is clear and efficient.

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 simple add/update tool with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the purpose and parameters, but lacks details on behavior (e.g., idempotency, error handling) and does not leverage the output schema to clarify return values. It meets the basic requirements but has gaps.

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 0% description coverage (no schema-level descriptions), but the tool description briefly explains each parameter: 'term: The term to define.' and 'definition: The definition text.' This adds basic meaning beyond the parameter names and types, but it does not provide format constraints, examples, or edge cases. It meets the baseline for a simple tool with two string parameters.

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 action ('Add or update') and the resource ('glossary term'), which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'add_journal_entry' or 'add_memory_entry'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from 'add_glossary_term' itself, but that is the same tool. The verb+resource combination is clear.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context (e.g., when to add vs update), or when not to use it. Sibling tools like 'get_glossary' exist but are not referenced.

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