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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds important specifics: rerunning a target language re-syncs its design from the source and can replace manual target-language design tweaks. It also notes translation allowances, giving useful quota/constraint context beyond the annotations.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the key prerequisite and destructive rerun caveat. Every sentence contributes useful information with no repetition.

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 rich schema, existing output schema, and annotations, the description is largely complete: it covers the source-layout prerequisite, destructive re-sync behavior, and allowance constraints. It does not explain how the source layout is identified beyond the schema's project/variant parameters, but that is minor.

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%, and the schema itself documents defaults, aliases, variant behavior, and language-code guidance. The description refers to 'requested languages' but adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action (translates), resource (screenshot-layout text), and scope (requested languages while preserving composition and language-specific images). It distinguishes itself from generic translation siblings by focusing on layouts, though it does not name a specific sibling alternative.

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 states the prerequisite of an existing source layout and describes rerun behavior, which gives useful usage context. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over translate_graphics, translate_store_listing, apply_locale_screenshots, or other translation siblings.

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