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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that reviewed texts are NOT overwritten unless overwriteReviewed:true, that results carry status 'auto', that each language consumes 1 monthly quota unit, and that Pro projects cap at 3 targets. These are exactly the mutation side-effects and limits an agent needs before invoking.

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 content is front-loaded with the verb and scope, and every clause carries operational information with no filler. The sentences are long and dense (quota, status, overwrite, dryRun all crammed together), which slightly hurts scanability but not content economy.

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 write tool with no output schema and only the annotations' safety profile, the description covers scope, side-effects, limits, quota accounting, and the dry-run escape hatch. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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?

With 75% schema coverage the schema already documents dryRun and overwriteReviewed, but the description adds meaning: targets are BCP-47 tags with concrete examples ('en', 'es-MX'), the quota cost is per language, and dryRun is framed as a cost preview. It reinforces rather than merely restates 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?

States a specific verb (translate) and resource (all tour texts) and enumerates exactly which fields are translated (títulos, descrições, narração, passo inicial/final, botões, consentimento). This clearly distinguishes it from set_translation and generate_narration among the siblings.

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?

Usage is implied: the description explains that translations are written with status 'auto' and protected against overwriting reviewed text, and that dryRun estimates cost, which sketches the scenario. However, it never explicitly names when to use this instead of set_translation for manual edits, nor states any condition that would steer the agent to an alternative.

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