update_glossary_entry

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden and does well: it discloses that the operation is an update, explains partial-update semantics, and specifies how to clear domain (pass "" or null) and aliases (pass []). It also states the return value as the updated entry dict.

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 front-loaded with a clear one-sentence purpose and the critical 'only provided fields are updated' caveat. The Args/Returns format is efficient, with no redundant or irrelevant text.

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?

The description covers the core operation, parameters, clearing semantics, and return type. It lacks details on error conditions or permission requirements, but for a straightforward glossary update these are not essential, making it nearly 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 0%, but the description compensates thoroughly by explaining each of the 6 parameters, including the special clear behavior for domain and aliases and the role of term_or_id for identification. This adds significant semantic meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 the tool updates an existing glossary entry and explicitly notes that only provided fields are updated. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_glossary_entry (creation) and delete_glossary_entry (removal), though it does not name a specific alternative.

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?

It implicitly signals usage when an entry already exists and needs modification, and the 'Only provided fields are updated' note is a key guideline. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over other glossary tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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