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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that re-translating an existing language replaces edited translations, that results are per-language and include available languages, and that the operation is subject to translation allowances. These details clarify destructive effects and constraints, consistent with destructiveHint=true.

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 compact and front-loaded: the purpose comes first, followed by replacement behavior and output/allowance notes. Every sentence adds useful information without 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 an output schema, rich annotations, and moderate parameter complexity, the description is largely complete for calling the tool correctly. It covers purpose, destructive replacement behavior, return shape, and allowance constraints, though it lacks explicit alternative-routing guidance.

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 67%, with variantId and targetLanguages already described in the schema. The description adds only general context such as "requested languages" and "saved promo-video scene text" but does not compensate for the undocumented projectId parameter.

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 and resource: "Translates saved promo-video scene text into requested languages." This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling translation tools such as translate_graphics, translate_layouts, and translate_store_listing by naming promo-video scene text specifically. It is clear, though it does not explicitly route against siblings.

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 context implies usage for translating saved promo-video scene text, and it notes that re-translating an existing language replaces edited translations. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus sibling translation tools or describe exclusions and alternatives.

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