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

Annotations already supply the safety profile: readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds upsert semantics ('Create or update') but no extra detail about whether existing translations are overwritten wholesale or how partial updates behave, so it adds some but not rich context.

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?

One concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, plus a relevant API reference link. There is no filler or redundant repetition of schema content.

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 simple upsert operation with 100% parameter coverage, annotations for safety, and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. The main missing piece is sibling differentiation, which is already captured in the usage_guidelines dimension.

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?

The input schema covers all parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3 under the rubric. The description's phrase 'for a specific locale' loosely maps to the locale parameter but adds no new meaning beyond the schema fields.

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 states a specific verb ('Create or update') and resource ('a translation for a specific locale'), making the core function immediately clear. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling locale-related tools like put_notification_locale or put_journey_template_locale, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_translation, put_notification_locale, or put_journey_template_locale. The description explains what the tool does but not which scenario selects it over siblings.

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