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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: the tool clones the source text as an initial draft and returns it for immediate editing. It also surfaces constraints not fully visible in the schema, such as the one-translation-per-language uniqueness rule.

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 compact and front-loaded with the purpose, then gives the workflow, then the constraints. Every sentence adds necessary information, and there's no empty or redundant phrasing.

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 only two required parameters, an output schema, and annotations already present, the description covers enough for correct invocation and follow-up: purpose, constraints, return-as-draft behavior, and the next tool to use. The agent is fully equipped to call and act on the result.

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 baseline is strong. The description adds useful meaning by framing formId as the source whose text is cloned and language as a value that must be unique per form, pointing to list_form_translations to verify validity.

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 names a specific verb and resource: adding a language version/translation to a form. It also differentiates itself from siblings by explicitly describing the clone-then-edit workflow and pointing to update_form_translation as a separate save step.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when adding a new translation, not editing an existing one. It directs the agent to list_form_translations for the at-most-one-per-language rule and to update_form_translation for saving edits, so the agent can choose correctly.

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