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

The description explicitly calls the operation 'additive', implying non-destructive behavior, while the annotations declare destructiveHint=true. This is a direct contradiction between the description and the structured metadata, leaving the agent with conflicting safety signals.

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 concise sentence with the core operation and endpoint. The parenthetical 'additive' is short but informative, though it contributes to the contradiction with the annotation.

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?

With five parameters, a destructiveHint=true annotation, and no output schema, the description lacks return behavior, duplicate/overwrite semantics, and permission requirements. It covers the basic operation but leaves important side-effect questions unanswered.

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 already describes all five parameters with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to repeat them. It adds only the endpoint context for projectId and no deeper parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('Adds'), names the resource ('translation for a source string in a target language'), and includes the exact API endpoint. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like crowdin_add_string and the list/get tools.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The agent must infer the intended use from the name and the phrase 'for a source string'.

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