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

With annotations marking this as a non-read-only write, the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: nothing goes live, output is a draft change set requiring owner review/publication, and manual translations override machine output. It does not address idempotency (repeated calls with idempotentHint=false may create duplicate drafts) or auth requirements, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the core action before the draft/review behavior. Every clause earns its place, though it packs a lot into one sentence rather than segmenting purpose from consequences.

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 5-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers the key lifecycle behavior (draft, review, publish) and the manual-override rule, and the schema handles the rest. Only the idempotency/duplicate-draft question is left unaddressed.

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 coverage is 80%, so parameters are already well documented in the schema itself (including the 'keep brand names' and 'never add ingredients or claims' guidance). The description only loosely maps to the entity/locale/name/description fields without adding syntax or format meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('Propose a translation') and resource ('name and/or description of one product or category') with clear scope ('into one menu language'). It is distinguishably a translation-drafting tool, but it never names or contrasts with the closely related siblings draft_product_description and draft_site_text, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 implies usage via 'saved as a DRAFT change set the owner reviews and publishes' and the manual-overrides-machine note, but it gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives (e.g., draft_product_description, draft_site_text). Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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