glossary_set

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

The annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description explains exactly why: upsert-by-term semantics, plus the non-obvious fact that aliases/examples are replaced by what you pass and omitting them clears them. It also discloses literal (non-vector) matching and returns '{ data: glossary row }', adding real behavioral context 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?

Three dense sentences with no filler: purpose first, then matching/usage context, then mutation semantics and return shape. Each sentence earns its place and the key constraint (clearing aliases) is stated in the same breath as the upsert behavior.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description gives the return shape, covers matching behavior, mutation/upsert semantics, and namespace handling is covered by the schema. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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%, so every parameter is already documented, including the 'Replaces any existing aliases/examples' semantics. The description's upsert sentence mostly restates what the schema says, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a precise verb+resource ('Add or update a glossary term') and immediately scopes the resource ('private vocabulary such as nicknames, in-jokes or project names'), which clearly separates it from the memory_* siblings. An agent can identify the tool's job without opening the schema.

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?

It explains where glossary terms surface ('matched literally during memory_recall', 'all included in memory_boot'), which gives useful context on why to set one. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer glossary_set over a sibling like memory_upsert, nor any exclusions or prerequisites, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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