add_glossary_entry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions returns (created entry or error for blank/duplicate input) but does not disclose side effects, permissions needed, or whether the operation is reversible. Important behavioral traits for a mutation tool are missing.

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 structured into purpose, Args, and Returns, with clear separation. It is front-loaded with the main action. While it could be slightly more concise by using bullet points, it is not verbose and every sentence adds value.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers inputs and returns adequately. It mentions error conditions for blank/duplicate input but does not explain domain validation or whether aliases are cross-referenced. The sibling context helps but completeness could be improved.

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 description must compensate. It provides meaningful explanations for all five parameters: examples for term and expansion, clarification for domain and aliases, and specifies 'Detailed definition' for definition. This adds value beyond the schema property names.

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 'Add a new glossary entry' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like update_glossary_entry and delete_glossary_entry, and the context of siblings includes search_glossary and list_glossary, making the creation purpose unambiguous.

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 explains parameters but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_fact or when not to use it (e.g., if the term already exists). The Args and Returns imply usage scenarios, but no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over related ones.

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