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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: the Manager role requirement, the partial-update contract (omitted fields stay unchanged), and the explicit non-effects (no text changes, no deprecation, no deletion). The only mild tension is destructiveHint=true versus the stated non-destructiveness, but overwriting existing property values is consistent with a destructive hint.

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 dense sentences with the operation type front-loaded, followed by the mutation semantics, the permission requirement, and the exclusions. No filler.

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 five-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers auth, partial-update semantics, and side-effect boundaries, which is enough for correct invocation. Return shape is unspecified, but annotations already declare idempotency and safety, so the gap 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%, so all five parameters are already documented, including the -1 sentinel for limit. The description paraphrases the same three mutable fields without adding format or constraint detail, so the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (change) and resource (a source key's properties), then enumerates the three mutable fields: translator comment, max translation length, hidden flag. It also names the underlying endpoint, so the agent knows exactly what operation this is.

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?

Gives clear context on when this applies (editing existing key properties, with omissions preserved) and explicit exclusions: it does not change texts and cannot deprecate or delete the key. It does not route to a specific sibling alternative, but no sibling performs the same job.

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