manage_translations

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

Annotations are minimal (only title) with no readOnlyHint or destructiveHint. The description implies both read (list) and write (add/remove) operations but does not disclose side effects, such as whether existing files are overwritten, what happens to the project configuration, or any required permissions. With no annotations, the description fails to convey safety-critical behavior.

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 front-loads the core purpose. However, it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing brevity, such as hinting at the optional parameter or expected behavior per action.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description does not explain what each action returns (e.g., list returns file names, add confirms success). For a tool with three distinct actions, the description is too sparse to fully inform an agent about expected outcomes or file format constraints.

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 descriptions for all three parameters. The tool description essentially restates the action parameter ('List/add/remove') but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. The optionality of translationPath is already encoded in the schema (not required). Baseline 3 applies as schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'List/add/remove translation files in project'. It specifies a specific verb (manage) and resource (translation files), and the action set is unambiguous. There are no sibling tools with similar names, so differentiation is inherent.

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. For example, it does not mention that 'manage_resource' or 'game_locale' might be better suited for other resource types or locale settings. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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