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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses important side effects and constraints: the language and picker appear only after the next publish_demo, AI credits are consumed at 1 per 50 strings, and the operation requires demos:read and demos:write. This is rich behavioral context for a non-readonly mutation tool.

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 front-loaded with the main action, then follows with the retranslate behavior, publish timing, plan/cost constraints, and required permissions. Every sentence adds useful information without waste.

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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete: it explains what is changed, when viewers see the result, the cost model, plan restrictions, and required permissions. An agent has enough information to decide whether and how to call it.

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%, and both locale and retranslate already have descriptive enums and defaults in the schema. The description adds some context around locale being added if absent and retranslate covering missing/outdated/all, but it largely repeats what the schema documents rather than adding syntax or format details.

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 uses specific verbs and resources: it adds a language to a demo and translates its copy with AI. It also scopes the operation to missing/outdated strings or all strings, making it distinguishable from sibling copy tools like rewrite_copy or replace_in_copy.

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 clearly states the context: use this when a demo needs a new language and AI translation of copy, with missing/outdated versus all behavior. It also gives prerequisites such as Pro/Team plans and AI credits, but it does not explicitly name an alternative tool or when not to use this one.

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