omni_block_translate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the operation is a one-to-one translation and returns one of three statuses (translated, passthrough, unresolved), plus the engine-level fact that no alias table exists. This is meaningful, but it does not clarify the exact role of the meta parameter or behavior on invalid input.

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?

Two sentences, zero wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, and the critical usage warning is placed at the end. Every sentence earns its place.

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 description covers the essential call pattern, the return statuses, and a strong usage condition. However, given no output schema and no annotations, it should explain the meaning of 'passthrough' and 'unresolved' and clarify the meta parameter's role. These omissions leave an agent uncertain about edge cases and optional inputs.

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 only 50% (id is described, meta is not). The description mentions 'with metadata' but does not explain the meta parameter's semantics, whether it is input or output, or when it is needed. This is a real gap because the tool name includes 'block_translate' and the schema leaves meta undocumented.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Translate ONE 1.20 block id to its 1.8 form (with metadata)' and distinguishes the tool by emphasizing it is the pre-op translation function with no alias table in the engine. This clearly separates it from siblings like omni_block_search or omni_item_translate.

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 explicitly says when to use it: 'before any 1.20 block name goes into an op' and gives the reason ('there is NO alias table on the placement path in the engine'). It does not name alternative tools or exclusions, but the usage context is strong and sufficient for this tool.

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