gather_text_for_target

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the write/mutation nature is covered structurally. The description adds real context beyond that: it writes a config file, runs a commandlet in-process, and returns exit_code/success/message. It does not, however, explain what makes it destructive (overwriting existing manifest/archive entries), which would be the key missing detail.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the implementation detail is secondary. The explicit Returns line is justified because there is no output schema. Slightly dense with internal symbol names but no wasted sentences.

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?

With no output schema, the description helpfully supplies the return shape, and it characterizes the operation as a multi-step commandlet run. It is nearly complete for a mutation tool, missing only an explicit statement of what data may be overwritten when gathering.

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 both parameters are fully documented in the schema (scope disambiguation, target_name sourcing from list_localization_targets). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, 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 and resource ('Gather text into a localization target's manifest/archive files') and names the underlying pipeline (GenerateGatherTextConfigFile + UGatherTextCommandlet::Execute), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like compile_text_for_target. An agent can tell exactly what operation this performs.

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 'Localization Dashboard's Gather Text button' analogy gives implied context for when this runs, and target_name is tied to list_localization_targets. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or mention of the adjacent compile_text_for_target step that typically follows gathering.

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