create_glossary

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description only adds that it 'creates', which is implicit. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., name uniqueness, rate limits, side effects) are disclosed beyond 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?

Two short, direct sentences. The first states the action, the second explains the purpose. No redundant information, front-loaded with essential details.

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 tool is simple (one parameter, output schema exists). The description covers the creation action and the purpose of glossaries. While it could mention behavior on duplicate names, it is largely sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's function.

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 0%, so the description should compensate. It mentions 'custom name' but provides no constraints, format, or uniqueness requirements for the name parameter. For a single required parameter, this is insufficient.

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 ('Create a glossary') and the resource ('with a custom name in your Lara Translate account'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_glossary_entry and delete_glossary by mentioning the purpose ('enforce specific terminology during translation').

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies use for creating glossaries before adding entries, but lacks criteria for when not to use it or comparisons with similar tools like create_memory.

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