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

Goes well beyond the annotations by naming the required permission ('Add suggestion'), the feature/version gate (suggestions enabled, Weblate 2026.8+), and the non-obvious side effect that an author's automatic upvote or an identical existing suggestion can push past the auto-accept threshold and apply the translation immediately. That conditional mutation context is exactly what the destructive/open-world annotations flag but cannot explain.

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?

Front-loaded with the WRITE marker and the core action, then two tight sentences covering permissions/version and the endpoint. No filler; each clause carries distinct operational information.

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 write tool with no output schema, the description supplies the safety profile (permission and feature prerequisites), the conditional auto-apply behavior, and the underlying endpoint. An agent has everything it needs to decide whether and how to call it.

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 both parameters are fully documented in the schema (unit_id cross-references weblate_list_units; target explains plural forms). The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the 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 ('propose a translation') and resource ('one string') with a WRITE label that distinguishes it from read siblings like weblate_list_suggestions and from weblate_accept_suggestion, which acts on the proposal later.

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 normal flow (proposal is accepted by a reviewer later) and the auto-accept edge case, which implies the alternative of writing directly via weblate_update_translation or accepting via weblate_accept_suggestion. It never names those siblings explicitly, so routing is slightly inferential rather than spelled out.

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