Register 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 of behavioral disclosure, and it discloses nothing. For a mutating registration tool, there is no mention of idempotency, duplicate-id handling, permission requirements, persistence scope (project vs global), or side effects.

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 single phrase is short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness — it contains no information beyond the tool name. There is no structure or front-loaded guidance to evaluate.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is completely inadequate. An agent has no basis to decide when to call it or how to populate the required id/canonical pair correctly.

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% and the description adds nothing about the 5 parameters. Critical ambiguities are unresolved: what 'id' vs 'canonical' means, whether aliases replace or append, and what 'project_id' scoping implies when omitted.

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 '注册专有名词表条目' merely restates the tool name 'register_glossary_term' / title 'Register Glossary Term' in Chinese. It names no distinguishing scope, target resource semantics, or differentiating factor from the many sibling register_* tools (register_entity, register_fact, register_flag, register_event, register_constraint, etc.).

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, prerequisite, or alternative-tool guidance at all. With over 50 sibling tools including several near-identical register_* verbs, the absence of any routing guidance is a serious gap.

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