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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the lower bar applies. The description still earns credit by adding that the deletion is 'Permanent' and that 'prior translations are not recoverable', which goes beyond what the hints convey, though it omits permission/auth requirements.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its consequence, then the recovery path. No filler and nothing redundant.

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 needn't explain returns, and it covers irreversibility plus how to recover. The gap is the undocumented formId/language semantics, but the core behavioral picture for a destructive tool is complete.

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% and both parameters are required, so the description carries the load. It references 'language' only obliquely and never explains 'formId' (the scoping identifier) or that the language field expects a BCP-47 style tag per the regex pattern.

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 ('Delete') plus resource ('a language') plus the blast radius ('and all stored translations for it'), which no sibling does. An agent can distinguish it from translationLanguage_list and translationDraft_update/publish without opening a 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?

It supplies a remediation path ('Re-add by calling translationDraft_update') which is genuinely useful workflow guidance, but never states when to delete versus leaving a language in place or which preconditions must hold. Usage is implied rather than framed as a decision.

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