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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: human/agent-authored translations are preserved while stale machine translations are regenerated, and the tool returns a count and answers 503 when no translator exists. This discloses what is mutated, what is protected, and error behavior, all consistent with the write/non-idempotent annotations.

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 core purpose and then adds preservation, timing, and error facts, each earning its place. It is somewhat dense and run-on but contains no filler.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description already notes it 'says how many.' Combined with mutation scope, preservation rules, automatic-vs-manual timing, and the 503 condition, nothing an agent needs to call 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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema coverage; the schema already documents the slug fully (its address /movie/<slug>/). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline of 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 ('fill in, by machine translation') and precisely scopes the resource: title, slide names, and text/shape/button block texts of a presentation. No sibling tool performs translation, and the description makes clear it targets untranslated texts only, so an agent can distinguish it immediately.

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?

Provides clear context for when to invoke: the site already does this automatically a few seconds after every change, so calling this tool means 'do it now.' That implicitly guides the agent toward manual use, though it never states an explicit when-not condition or names an alternative tool.

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