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

Annotations already declare destructive/non-idempotent/write, and the description goes beyond them by stating the current translation is replaced, that approval needs a review workflow and permission, and the minimum Weblate version. It does not describe the response or error behavior, but the added context is substantive.

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?

Two terse sentences lead with the WRITE marker and the core mutation, then the optional flag, then version and endpoint. No filler; every clause earns its place.

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 two-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies what structured data cannot: the replacement semantics, the permission/review prerequisite, and the version floor. Return-value behavior is the only omitted detail.

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 100% and the schema already documents both `approve` and `suggestion_id` (including the cross-reference to weblate_list_suggestions). The description's note that `approve` requires review workflow and permission adds a little meaning, but the schema does the heavy lifting, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb (apply/accept) and resource (a suggestion to its string) and clarifies the side effect: 'replaces the current translation'. This clearly distinguishes it from weblate_list_suggestions and weblate_add_suggestion.

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?

Explains the conditional path: passing `approve` also marks the translation approved and requires the review workflow plus permission. It gives context for choosing the approve variant, though it never explicitly names a sibling (e.g. weblate_update_translation) as an alternative for editing translations directly.

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