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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool 'updates' an existing key, implying mutation, but does not disclose whether the operation overwrites existing values, requires specific permissions, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and clearly lists the scope of changes. Every word earns its place, with no wasted or redundant phrasing. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse to be considered complete. It does not explain update semantics (e.g., whether all fields are overwritten), potential error conditions, or return values. The schema covers parameters but not behavioral or response context, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 100%, with all 7 parameters having descriptive comments. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond listing the updatable fields (name, namespace, description), which the schema already covers. The baseline of 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('existing translation key'), and lists the exact attributes that can be updated (name, namespace, description). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like create_keys or delete_keys. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately understandable.

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?

The description implies the tool is used when you need to modify a translation key's name, namespace, or description, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as set_translation for updating translation values. No exclusions or alternative guidance is given.

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