Rename glossary term

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

The description discloses meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: the operation is atomic, both sides change together or not at all, and it refuses unknown terms. It does not mention conflict behavior when the replacement term already exists, but the key mutation semantics are clear.

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?

A single compact sentence conveys the operation, the file affected, the side effect, the atomicity guarantee, and a failure condition. There is no filler or repetition of schema information.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description provides the target file, the reference rewrite side effect, atomicity, and refusal behavior. Minor gaps such as handling duplicate replacement names or response shape are not critical for correct invocation.

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 schema already fully documents both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline applies. The description's 'refuses when the term is unknown' reinforces but does not significantly extend the schema's 'existing glossary term' description, and it adds no new constraints for the replacement term.

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 states a specific action, 'rename one glossary term in glossary.md,' and the secondary effect of rewriting Discovery tags. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add, set, field, and renumber, which have different operations.

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 intended use is implied by the title and the verb: this is the tool for renaming a glossary term and updating its references. However, it names no sibling alternatives and gives no explicit when/not-when guidance for choosing this tool over another.

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