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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description adds real value by bounding the destruction (only the translation line is rewritten), clarifying that empty translations are a valid state rather than an error, and describing the dry-run preview behavior.

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?

Front-loads the scope constraint before the mechanics, and every sentence carries information (what is preserved, what is mutated, ordering rule, commit semantics). Slightly dense but no filler.

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 an output schema present and rich annotations, the description covers mutation scope, error tolerance, and preview behavior. The only meaningful gap is the undocumented `targetLang` parameter, which is neither described here nor in the schema.

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 80%, and the description supplements it with the crucial positional contract for `translations`: entry N maps to example N, shorter lists leave the rest untouched, and {"index":2,"t":"…"} patches a single entry. `targetLang` remains unexplained in both schema and description.

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 precise verb and scope: it rewrites only the translation line of existing examples while leaving sentence, {} highlights, and audio/typing markers untouched. This cleanly separates it from siblings like lingard_fill_missing_card_fields that touch other fields.

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?

Explicitly explains that translations must be built from the card's current examples (read via a collection fetch with includeExamples:true) and that commit=true writes while omitting it yields a preview. It doesn't name a sibling alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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