Save a domain term

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

Annotations already communicate that this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and idempotent (idempotentHint=true). The description adds useful content guidance about keeping text to 2-3 lines and describing business meaning, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as authentication needs or side effects beyond 'replaces.' No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource, then gives a concise, actionable instruction about how to write the definition.

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 three-parameter write tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description plus schema is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. The only notable gap is explicit routing guidance against sibling tools, but that is not essential for successful 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 input schema has 100% coverage for all three parameters, so the schema already documents their meaning. The description repeats the 2-3 line constraint already present in the description parameter's schema and does not add new parameter-level semantics.

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 the specific action 'Stores or replaces' and the resource 'business definition of a domain term in a project.' This clearly distinguishes it from the read-oriented sibling tools lookup_term and list_missing_terms.

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 implies this tool is for creating or updating term definitions, but it does not explicitly mention when to prefer it over lookup_term or list_missing_terms. The sibling names make the contrast inferable, but no explicit guidance or exclusion criteria are provided.

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