add_glossary

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

The description discloses that terms are added to a glossary and that they influence ASR and reasoning. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., whether duplicates are allowed), error scenarios, or permissions. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and falls short of fully transparent behavior.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded: first sentence states the action and format, second adds purpose. No extraneous words. 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?

For a simple tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential information: what it does, format, and purpose. However, it lacks details on duplicate handling and error cases, which could be important for correct usage. Still, it is close to complete for the tool's complexity.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the format for 'terms' items ("term" or "term :: description"), adding meaning beyond the schema. However, the 'project' parameter is not explained, and there is no clarification on how terms are added (e.g., append vs. overwrite). Partial compensation.

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 action (add terms to project glossary) and the expected format for each term. It also hints at the purpose (ASR boosting and meeting minutes reasoning). However, it does not distinguish this tool from its siblings, such as add_participants or confirm_speaker.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites, such as requiring an existing project, or conditions where this tool is inappropriate.

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