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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds the crucial outcome the annotations cannot express: the result goes to the user's Eigma inbox for confirmation and the page itself is unchanged. That explains why readOnlyHint is false despite no mutation, which would otherwise look contradictory. It does not discuss failure modes, e.g. what happens if the title does not match exactly.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: trigger, scope of translation, exclusions, and side effect. The most decision-relevant information (when to use it) is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explaining where the result lands (the user's inbox, pending confirmation) and that the source page is untouched. For a five-parameter write tool with no enums or nested objects, nothing essential 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 coverage is 100%, so all five parameters are already documented, and the description's "Pass `page` exactly as the title appears in the wiki" largely restates the schema's own "EXACT title" wording. No additional format or syntax guidance is offered for lang, body_md, summary, or category_path, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (translate an existing Eigma page) and immediately draws the scope boundary: body and summary are translated, TITLE and quiz questions are not. This distinguishes it from siblings like eigma_suggest_edits or eigma_save_notes, which also write content.

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?

"Use this when the user asks for an EXISTING Eigma page in another language" gives an explicit trigger condition, and the exclusion of title/quiz tells the agent what work does not belong here. The agent is not left to infer when this tool applies.

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