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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: it warns that updates propagate across all projects sharing the key and that machine-translation flags are cleared because the value is now human-edited. This is exactly the kind of side-effect disclosure an agent needs. No contradiction with the annotations found.

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 two focused sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary purpose, then adds the two most important side effects. Every sentence contributes useful information for invoking the tool correctly.

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 four-parameter update operation, the description covers the target, the shared-key propagation risk, and the flag-clearing behavior. The schema covers required parameters and an output schema exists, so return-value details are not needed. Nothing critical 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?

The input schema already documents all four parameters with descriptions, and coverage is 100%. The tool description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond restating that the value is a translation and identifying key/language/project as selectors. This meets the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 action ('update the translation value') targeting a specific resource ('a specific phrase key and language in a MultiLocale project'). It clearly separates this from sibling tools like add_phrase, delete_phrase, or update_project, and the unique scope is obvious.

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?

The description gives clear context for when to use the tool: when changing a translation value. It also surfaces an important caveat that phrases may be shared and the update affects all projects sharing the key. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the intended use is clear.

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