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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: 3 AI credits per translation reserved up front with refunds on failure, asynchronous execution requiring polling of get_clone_job, verbatim app/brand names with localized caption/hashtags, and the language/localizedFrom markers on results. This is rich operational context that the openWorldHint/destructiveHint flags do not convey.

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 core translate behavior, cost, and async notes are valuable, but the leading sentences about pasting links and rebuilding variations describe the parent cloning feature rather than this tool, so the payload is not front-loaded and several sentences do not earn their place for a translation call.

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 no output schema, the description usefully explains the return semantics (translated variations carry language and localizedFrom) and tells the agent to poll get_clone_job. Combined with cost, refund, and language restrictions, an agent has enough to invoke correctly; only jobId/idempotencyKey semantics are 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?

With schema coverage at 25%, the description compensates well for pieceIds (omit = all finished originals, existing pairs skipped) and languages (each language a new audience, pl/tr restricted to carousels). jobId and idempotencyKey are left undocumented, but both are conventional, so the marginal gap is small.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('TRANSLATES finished variations into other languages') and makes the distinction from the parent cloning flow explicit by emphasizing each (variation, language) pair becomes a new variation. However, the first three sentences describe the cloning feature in general ('Paste a TikTok or Instagram link... Prolifik rebuilds it...') rather than this tool's job, which dilutes focus before the actual purpose appears.

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?

Offers concrete operating guidance: omit pieceIds to translate every finished original variation, existing pairs are skipped, and Polish/Turkish only work on carousel variations. It also says to poll get_clone_job for completion. It stops short of contrasting with the closest sibling (add_clone_variations), but the when/how conditions are unusually clear.

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