acedatacloud_enable_translation

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It hints at a write operation ('replace a field') but does not mention side effects like overwriting existing content, reversibility, or the confirmation requirement. It fails to convey the safety and potential destructiveness of the action, leaving the agent uninformed about the impact.

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 a single, concise sentence that effectively communicates the core action. There is no repetition of information already in the schema, and every word is meaningful. It is optimally sized and front-loaded.

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?

This is a mutation tool (replaces a field) with no annotations, yet the description is extremely sparse. It lacks critical context about the confirm parameter, potential data loss, or when to use it. Although an output schema exists, that only covers return values, not operational context. The description is incomplete for safe and correct usage.

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 each parameter is already well-documented. The description adds only generic context ('store source text' relates to content, 'replace a field' relates to field) without detailing the purpose of model or object_id. Per rubric, baseline 3 is appropriate when schema covers all parameters and the description adds minimal value.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Store source text and replace a field with an auto-translation reference.' It uses a specific verb ('store', 'replace') and identifies the resource (a field). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like disable_translation or get_translation_capabilities, even without explicitly naming alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as the need to set confirm to true, nor does it contrast with disable_translation or other translation-related tools. The only usage hint comes from the tool name and schema, not the description.

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