Update Term

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely new context the annotations cannot express: that editing a certified Term's name or description silently demotes it to draft unless status is supplied. That is a real state-transition trap an agent would otherwise miss; it stops short of 5 only because the destructive-delete consequences (column mappings, SQL attributes) live in the schema rather than the description.

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 sentences, zero padding. The operation list is front-loaded and the certification side-effect follows as supporting detail, which is the right ordering for an agent scanning for fit.

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?

With 10 parameters, an output schema, and rich annotations, most structured burden is already carried elsewhere, and the description covers the highest-risk gotcha. It does not mention the datasource parameter's single-datasource fallback or reinforce that delete is irreversible, but those gaps are modest given full schema coverage and an output schema.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description earns above baseline by explaining the interaction between the name/description parameters and the status parameter — a cross-parameter dependency the per-field schema text cannot convey on its own.

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 opens with a specific verb set tied to a concrete resource: 'Edit, certify, deprecate or delete a Term.' The enumerated operation modes let an agent distinguish this from read-path siblings like get_term, list_terms, and search_ontology without inspecting any schema.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the mutation counterpart to get_term/list_terms, but no sibling is named and no when-not-to-use condition is given. The one conditional sentence present ('unless you also pass status') is a behavioral caveat rather than a routing rule, so the guidance remains minimal-viable.

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