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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the mutation and safety profile is covered. The description adds that the resulting status is 'reviewed' and enumerates applicable field names per step type, but it does not clarify overwrite/partial-update behavior for omitted fields.

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 front-loaded with the main action, then stepId semantics, then field lists. It is dense but efficient, using semicolon-separated lists rather than padding, though the field enumeration is somewhat run-on.

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 four-parameter, all-required mutation with a nested object and no output schema, the description covers the essential input semantics: target language, step target, and valid fields per step type. It omits edge-case behavior such as handling unknown stepIds or partial field updates, which are the main remaining gaps.

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 only 25% (only tourId is documented). The description compensates substantially by defining stepId semantics, including the special 'start'/'end' values, and by listing the allowed fields for step, start, and end steps. It still leaves lang format and nested field value constraints to 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 and resource ('Grava textos traduzidos de um passo num idioma') and explains that the saved status becomes 'reviewed'. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like translate_tour or update_step, so an agent must infer the distinction from the name and fields.

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 description implies usage by explaining that stepId can be a step id or one of the fixed values 'start'/'end', and it lists which fields apply to each step type. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives relative to translate_tour, which is the likely sibling for generating translations.

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