upsert_dictionary_word

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses two meaningful behaviors: physical words are normalized to uppercase, and standard-linked dictionaries are rejected with dictionary_is_linked. This is more than typical, though it omits details about permissions and return values.

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 three concise sentences with the core operation front-loaded. There is no redundant language, and each sentence adds a distinct piece of information: add/update mode, normalization behavior, and a rejection scenario.

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 main purpose and a couple of edge behaviors, but for a 7-parameter tool with no output schema, it leaves gaps: it doesn't explain whether logicalWord and physicalWord are still required for updates (they are in the schema), nor the return value. It also doesn't mention the alternative propose_dictionary_word, which might be more appropriate in some contexts.

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 only 14%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the roles of logicalWord and entryId (create vs update) but leaves description, englishName, and abbreviation undefined, relying on the schema for source. This is partial compensation for an otherwise low-coverage 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 explicitly states the tool's action: 'Adds a glossary entry (upsert by logicalWord) or updates one (entryId given).' It also mentions a rejection condition, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_dictionary_word and propose_dictionary_word.

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 explains the two distinct usage modes (insert vs update) and the linked-dictionary rejection, giving clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion scenarios, such as using propose_dictionary_word for proposal workflows.

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