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

Annotations already disclose readOnly=false, destructive=false and idempotent=false, and the description goes well beyond them. It explains exactly what happens to existing texts: translations are swapped, already-correct texts stay, and untranslated ones are listed. It also notes that counts and remaining translations are returned, giving strong behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded with the trigger condition and then explains the effects in a logical sequence. It is somewhat verbose and contains a parenthetical example that lengthens it, but every sentence contributes useful semantics for a complex mutation. It avoids repetition and unnecessary fields.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not detail return values, though it briefly mentions counts and untranslated items. Given the mutation's complexity, it covers what is changed and when to use it. The main remaining gap is that it does not reference the related translate_presentation sibling or other alternatives.

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 100%, and both parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description adds little parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline for high coverage is appropriate. It does not, for example, clarify slug format or the lang enum beyond the schema.

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 verb and resource: declaring/repairing the language of a presentation's texts, slide names and title. It clearly distinguishes the operation from a simple metadata update by explaining the translation-swapping behavior. It does not explicitly name sibling tools such as translate_presentation, so sibling differentiation is helpful but not explicit.

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 a clear condition for use: 'when the site guessed it wrong.' That is a concrete trigger and implies the tool is for correcting an incorrect language guess rather than general translation. It does not name an alternative or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of full routing guidance.

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