Save Glossary

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

Annotations already supply the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so the description only needs to add context. It does add something useful — that entries are returned with query context and are searched like Terms — but it never mentions that the tool also deletes entries via the `delete` parameter, which is the one behavior an agent most needs warned about on a write tool.

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?

Two short sentences with no padding, and the resource definition is front-loaded with a concrete example. The second sentence about query context is slightly indirect but still earns its place by linking the glossary to retrieval behavior.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the schema fully documents parameters. However, for a four-parameter mutation tool that can also delete entries and choose between datasource and global scope, the description leaves the destructive and scoping decisions entirely to the schema, which is adequate but not complete.

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% and each parameter (delete, entries, datasource, global_scope) is documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the domain framing of what a glossary entry is, not any additional semantics about scoping or update-versus-create behavior.

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 resource is clearly named (a glossary of abbreviations and internal jargon) with a concrete example (MRR → monthly recurring revenue), but the verb "Maintain" is vague and does not distinguish this from siblings such as update_term, save_concept, or list_terms. An agent can infer it is a glossary-writing tool from the name, but the description itself does not sharpen that distinction.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance: nothing tells the agent when to choose save_glossary over update_term or save_concept, nor when to scope an entry to a datasource versus using global_scope. The line "searched like Terms" hints at a relationship with the Terms tooling but stops short of an actionable rule.

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