propose_dictionary_word

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals login requirement, duplicate handling, source resolution via glossaryLink, and the owner approval process. It doesn't describe success return values or withdrawal options, but the key behaviors are transparent.

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?

Three sentences, no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose, then packs source resolution and duplicate behavior into the next two sentences, and concludes with the auth requirement. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with 7 params, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, source variants, duplicate outcomes, and auth. It does not specify success return format or integration with list_proposals/withdraw_proposal, but the core workflow is understandable.

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 schema covers 57% of parameters, and the description adds value by explaining how source works (workspaceId vs linked ERD resolved via glossaryLink) and by mapping duplicate results to registered/pending words. The remaining parameters (englishName, abbreviation, description, note) are self-explanatory by name.

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's purpose: proposing a new word for the workspace standard's word list, with owner approval. It distinguishes itself from direct dictionary modification tools like upsert_dictionary_word by emphasizing the proposal workflow.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (proposing a new word, with source options) and explains duplicate behavior (already_exists vs already_proposed). It also mentions login requirement. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full guidance.

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