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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a mutation and that 'enabled' controls future translation usage, but says nothing about whether editing resets the entry's approved status, what permissions are required, or what happens to unspecified fields (both optional params default to null).

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 tight sentence with the primary action front-loaded and the secondary toggle attached efficiently. Nothing is wasted, though splitting the edit behavior from the enable/disable behavior might read slightly clearer.

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 return values need not be explained. But for a three-parameter mutation with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description leaves out side effects (approval state, whether null means 'unchanged') that an agent would need before calling it safely.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that 'enabled' toggles use in future translations and that editing concerns the translation text itself, implicitly mapping to target_text. It does not explain entry_id semantics or the critical null-vs-value distinction for the optional fields (partial update vs. no change).

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 ('Edit') and resource ('an approved TM translation'), plus a second mode of operation (enabling/disabling). An agent can distinguish this from add_translation_memory_entry or delete_translation_memory_entry by the verb alone, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'approved TM translation' implies a precondition (the entry must already exist and be approved), which is useful guidance. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus add/delete/search translation memory siblings, so the routing signal is only implied.

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