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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds concrete context: 'Existing language-specific design tweaks are replaced' and that translated text and language-specific screenshots are retained. It also notes optional missing-image fill and changed-text translation, going beyond the annotations. No contradiction.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior, followed by the destructive effect and optional features. No filler or redundancy; every sentence adds distinct information.

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 output schema exists, return values needn't be explained. The description covers the key behavioral effects (replacement of tweaks, retention of translations) and optional flags, though it could elaborate more on required parameters to fully support a 5-param tool with 40% schema coverage.

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 coverage is only 40%. The description gives meaning to the two optional booleans (missing-image fill and changed-text translation), which is helpful, but says nothing about variantId or the projectId/generationId alias beyond what the schema already provides. It partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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 (copies) and resource (screenshot variant's source-language design) and scopes the operation to other languages while retaining translated text and language-specific screenshots. It clearly distinguishes the action from pure translation, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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's context (propagating design to other languages) but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives like translate_layouts or apply_locale_screenshots. An agent must infer suitability from the stated effect.

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