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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining the update model: omitted fields keep current value, partial translation is allowed, isActive is independent of the form's overall flag, and invalid field codes are rejected. It also discloses subtle behaviors such as keys being stored but never rendered, placeholders needing to stay intact, source levels being matched by position when no id exists, and scores/formulas/thresholds always coming from the source. No contradiction with the annotations exists.

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 three dense sentences: purpose first, then payload/mirroring and merge semantics, then the isActive behavior. Every sentence adds decision-relevant information, and none restates the schema. The pronoun and structure are efficient despite the tool's high complexity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity — nine parameters, deeply nested objects, matching rules, and fallback behavior — the definition is remarkably complete. It explains merge-by-code, position fallback, source-of-truth behavior for non-text fields, and how to pause a language. The only notable gap is not explicitly stating that a language version must already exist and that create_form_translation should be used to create a new one. With an output schema present, return-value documentation is not needed.

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 exceptionally high, so the schema already documents every parameter in depth. The top-level description adds useful cross-cutting meaning: the whole payload mirrors get_form_translation's shape, omitted fields keep current values, and partial translation is allowed. Since the schema itself carries the detailed per-field semantics, a 4 appropriately credits the description's added context without overstating it.

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 starts with a specific, action-oriented purpose: 'Save translated copy for one language version of a form.' It names the affected resource (a form translation) and immediately distinguishes this update operation from general form editing by listing the translation-specific sections: title, description, fields, report, systemText, booking. This is easily distinguishable from siblings like update_form or create_form_translation.

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 operational guidance: pass the translated shape mirrored from get_form_translation, omit fields to keep current values, partial translation is allowed, and isActive=false pauses the language independently. The schema adds that the draft should come from get_form_translation or the clone returned by create_form_translation. What is missing is an explicit sentence telling the agent to use create_form_translation first when the language version does not exist yet; this is implied by the update semantics but not stated.

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