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

Goes well past the destructiveHint/readOnlyHint annotations by disclosing that changes are workspace-wide, apply only to translations made afterward, require re-translation to take effect, and need an editor/admin role plus an Enterprise plan with a refusal that names which requirement failed. It also documents the error contracts (entry_exists with `current`, several_terms) and the required user-confirmation flow before replace: true, which is exactly the risk context an agent needs before mutating shared state.

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 purpose, then when-to-use with the anti-pattern, then the data model, then a bulleted per-action breakdown, then permissions — a sensible escalation. It is dense rather than padded, though the data-model paragraph and the per-action bullets restate some of the same field semantics, costing some tightness.

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 12-parameter destructive mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return shape inline (term and rule field lists, term_count, the 200-term cap), plus scope, timing, permission/plan gating and error recovery. An agent can call every action correctly, including the two-step confirmation path, using this text alone.

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 already 92%, so the schema carries most parameter documentation, but the description still adds real meaning: `original` → `translated` with the note that the source keeps the original as is, `languages` omitting meaning 'every language on a new term, unchanged on a replace', `case_sensitive` defaulting false, and 'ONE rule per language' for set_rule. It adds interpretation and defaults rather than syntax examples, so it sits just above the high-coverage baseline rather than at the top.

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 concrete verb pair (read and edit) against a concrete resource (workspace translation glossary and translation rules), then enumerates the five supported actions. Nothing about this overlaps ambiguously with the sibling set (captions, update_article, pronunciation), so an agent can route to it without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit triggers (user states how a term must be translated, a brand name must stay untranslated, or how a language's tone/formality should read) and an explicit anti-pattern ('Do NOT hand-edit translated captions or text ... the next translation repeats the mistake'). It also points to the follow-up action ('translate' on captions) needed to make changes take effect.

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