omni_item_translate

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose the transformation direction and that metadata is involved, and 'translate' implies a pure lookup; however it does not state side-effect behavior, handling of unknown ids, or whether meta is input vs output.

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, front-loaded with the operation and scope; the registry-size detail is compact and the sibling reference saves repetition.

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?

For a simple two-parameter translation tool the description gives the core selection and direction, but with no output schema and no annotations it omits return format, meta handling, and error behavior, leaving the agent to consult omni_block_translate for the contract.

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 0%, but the description only loosely identifies id as the 1.20 item id and mentions metadata; it does not explain the meta parameter's role, default when omitted, or accepted input format. It relies on 'same rules as omni_block_translate' for details.

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 ('Translate') and resource ('1.20 item id' to '1.8 form'), scopes to the item registry, and contrasts with omni_block_translate so an agent can distinguish sibling translation tools immediately.

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 first sentence clearly indicates when to call it: when a 1.20 item id needs converting to 1.8. 'Same rules as omni_block_translate' points to an established sibling contract, though it does not spell out conditions when the block variant should be used instead.

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