acedatacloud_set_site_menu_translation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. The description only states the action without revealing details like the confirm flag requirement, the content parameter's role, or the output schema implications. It doesn't mention whether the operation is reversible, what happens when enabling vs disabling, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation tool with a confirm gate.

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 clearly states the action and the target. It is front-loaded and wastes no words. It is appropriately minimal for a tool with comprehensive schema coverage.

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?

Given the complexity of the tool (6 parameters, required confirm flag, output schema present), the description is too brief to fully guide the agent. It fails to explain the confirm requirement, the content usage, or the output. The schema covers parameters, but the behavioral context is missing. A more complete description would mention prerequisite checks or side effects.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, but it does imply the key parameters (enabled, custom_item_id). The 'confirm' parameter's purpose is not clarified in the description, and the 'content' parameter's behavior (source text when enabling) is left to the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to enable or disable translation for one custom menu item. The verb 'set' is generic but the resource ('site menu translation') and action ('enable or disable') are specific. It distinguishes from siblings like acedatacloud_enable_translation and acedatacloud_disable_translation by specifying the scope ('custom menu item'), though it could explicitly name these siblings to enhance differentiation.

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 the tool is for toggling translation on a custom menu item, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternative tools like enable_translation or disable_translation. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned. The context of 'custom menu item' is clear enough, but no alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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