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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the permission model, the side effect (cache invalidation plus pipeline queueing), the conditional scope (published public posts only, otherwise lazy rebuild on next access), and the return value (count of invalidated locales). This is materially more than the schema or annotations provide.

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 action before the parenthetical permission details, and every clause carries real information (auth, queueing condition, return). The dense nested parentheses make it slightly heavy to parse, but nothing is wasted.

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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the gaps that matter: who may call it, what gets destroyed/rebuilt, the condition for immediate queueing, and what the call returns. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly 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?

One parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description should compensate. It gives useful context that the post's board membership determines permissions, but adds nothing about the postId format or constraints beyond what the name and uuid format already convey. Adequate but thin.

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?

Names a specific compound action (invalidate cached translations AND immediately re-translate from current source) on a specific resource (a post). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like mod_override_translation (manual override) and admin_set_topic_translations (setting translations), since this one forces a re-translation through the warm-up pipeline.

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?

Gives explicit authorization conditions (admin, or a moderator of the post's board; boardless posts admin-only) and states when the immediate re-translation actually fires (only published public posts are queued; otherwise caches rebuild on next access). It never names a competing sibling tool to route between, 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.