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

The description adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: sharing is live-linked, so later edits propagate to every attached project, and the response reports target projects plus attached language rows capped at 25. It does not explain why the operation is flagged destructive (destructiveHint=true) or what permissions/irreversibility are involved, which is the one notable gap.

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 tight sentences: purpose first, behavioral consequence second, exclusion last. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information 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 full schema coverage, an output schema present, and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description only needs to supply the linkage semantics and targeting rules — which it does. Nothing material for correct invocation 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 the three parameters are already fully documented and the baseline is 3. The description restates the 25-target cap and 'all of its languages' semantics but adds no syntax or behavior the schema lacks.

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 specific verb and resource ('reuse a key's translations in other projects') with a concrete example ('common button label'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from a copy that can differ per project. An agent can differentiate this from sibling tools like update_phrase or add_phrase without inspecting 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 gives an explicit trigger ('when someone asks to reuse a key's translations in other projects') and an explicit exclusion ('Not for a copy that can differ per project'). This is the when-to-use / when-not-to-use pattern done well.

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