update-glossary-term

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It merely says 'Update', implying mutation, and mentions 'JSON Patch', which suggests partial updates, but it does not explain, e.g., whether the term is replaced or patched, if authorization is required, what happens on failure, or if there are side effects. Critical information for a mutation tool is missing.

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 a single sentence of 8 words, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it sacrifices necessary details; it earns its place but could incorporate more context without being verbose. For example, a brief note about the operation format would improve it.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., the updated term, success message). Given the tool's complexity (2 params, mutation), and the presence of many sibling tools, the description lacks essential context such as error handling, idempotency, or required permissions. It is inadequate for an agent to use effectively.

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%, with both parameters having descriptions ('Glossary term UUID' and 'JSON Patch operations'). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it repeats 'JSON Patch operations'. Therefore, the description provides no added value for parameter semantics beyond the baseline of 3.

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 action ('Update') and the resource ('glossary term'), and specifies the method ('using JSON Patch operations'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'update-glossary' and other update-* tools by naming the specific resource. However, it could be more precise by clarifying what constitutes a 'glossary term' in this context.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update-glossary, create-glossary-term). It does not mention prerequisites, when to avoid using it, or how it compares to other update operations. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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