create_glossary_entry

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds important behavioral detail: the upsert behavior for existing sourceText, non-empty target requirements, max-length constraints, existing-language-key validation, and plan availability. This makes the tool's side effects and preconditions transparent without contradicting 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 description is one sentence followed by four focused, actionable bullets. Every line adds information, and the main purpose is front-loaded. There is no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 schema and annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly: required fields, parameter constraints, language-key prerequisites, plan limitation, and update semantics. No output schema is present, but the description is still sufficient for correct use.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds value by explaining that sourceText has a max length of 128, targets must be non-empty, and all language keys must exist in the project. The upsert rule also adds important semantic meaning to sourceText beyond the schema.

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: 'will create a glossary entry in your SimpleLocalize project.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_glossary_entries and delete_glossary_entry by naming the glossary-entry object and creation action.

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 gives clear practical context: language keys must already exist, get_languages is recommended if unsure, and the Community plan restriction is a real usage constraint. It also explains that an existing sourceText triggers an update rather than a duplicate. It does not explicitly contrast this with alternative translation-creation tools, but the usage context is otherwise clear.

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