approve_translation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'Approve a translation' without revealing side effects, reversibility, permissions, or what the tool returns. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise, with two short phrases. 'Approve a translation' is front-loaded and clear. The extra note about 'PRO+ plan' adds relevant context without redundancy. However, it may be under-specified for the tool's complexity, which is captured in other dimensions.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, and the likelihood that approving a translation has side effects, the description is incomplete. It doesn't mention prerequisites beyond the plan, what happens to the translation, or the expected response. Sibling tools indicate a complex translation workflow, so the description should provide more context.

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 input schema defines no properties, and schema coverage is vacuously 100%. The description adds no parameter meaning, and the schema's additionalProperties:true suggests parameters could be accepted but none are documented. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4, but the description's silence on how to specify which translation to approve prevents a higher score; it is not worse than 3 because no explicit parameter details are expected.

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 states the action 'Approve a translation,' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools through the unique 'approve' verb, but it lacks any additional scope or context, such as whether it targets pending translations or what the approval entails.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_translation_mode, upload_translation, or delete_translation. The 'PRO+ plan' note implies a plan requirement but does not address when or why to use the tool.

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