Assign Glossary Term

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining what the assignment actually does, what downstream catalog facets read it, and that 'assigning the same term to the same column twice is reported, not duplicated.' This gives concrete idempotency semantics beyond the idempotentHint annotation, with no contradiction to the 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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and each subsequent sentence adds non-redundant context: the distinction from term creation, the downstream consumers of the assignment, and duplicate behavior. There is no filler or unnecessary repetition.

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 fully documented schema, output schema, and annotations, the description supplies the non-obvious context an agent needs: what the assignment does, what reads it, and how duplicates are handled. Nothing material is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters including term_id, term_name, table_name, column_name, and resource_uri. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline score applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Assign a business term to a table column,' and immediately conveys the operational consequence ('the step that makes a term govern data'). It also distinguishes itself from create_glossary_term by explaining that creating only defines a word, so an agent can tell assignment apart from term definition.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: after a term exists, when the goal is to attach it to a column rather than just define it. It also ties the effect to downstream tools like list_table_terms and list_term_assets, giving useful context. However, it does not explicitly point to unassign_glossary_term as the removal alternative or state when not to use this tool.

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