append_project_glossary_term

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the dedup behavior, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention side effects, versioning, or what happens on duplicate (e.g., update or ignore).

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 but includes a version prefix ('v2.1.0 —') that is not essential. It lacks structured breakdown of purpose, usage, or parameters, making it minimally acceptable.

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?

Given the tool has 3 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a glossary term is, how it integrates with the project, or what the output is. Many sibling tools exist, but no comparative context is provided.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only implicitly mentions 'term' in the dedup note. No explanation of 'projectId' or 'definition' is given, leaving the agent without necessary context.

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 verb 'append', the resource 'glossary term', and the dedup behavior. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'remove_project_glossary_term' and 'append_project_fact' by specifying 'glossary term' and dedup.

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 such as 'append_project_fact' or 'append_project_convention'. Missing explicit context for when not to use it.

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