translate-document

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only mentions use of the DeepL API, but does not disclose output file handling, potential overwrites, external rate limits, or any side effects. This is inadequate for a tool that reads and writes files.

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, direct sentence with no filler or repetition, making it concise and easy to scan. However, it is so brief that it borders on under-specification, missing key behavioral details that could be included without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

The tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description provides almost no contextual information beyond the basic translation action. It does not explain output file handling, format conversions, or integration with other tools like list-style-rules or list-glossaries.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a description, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides; it does not clarify parameter formats or relationships.

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 uses the specific verb 'translate' and resource 'document file', clearly stating the tool's function. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like translate-text or rephrase-text, leaving some ambiguity about which tool to use for document files specifically.

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. No context is given for when document translation is preferred over text translation, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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