translate_batch

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 adds valuable context: 'Each text is translated individually using the team's TM and style guides,' revealing reliance on translation memory and style guides. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what the output contains. For a mutation tool (translation implies creation of translated content) with zero annotation coverage, this is a moderate gap.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by usage context and behavioral details, then a structured parameter list. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or waste. The 'Args' section is well-organized for easy reference.

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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, usage, behavioral context, and parameter semantics. The output schema existence means return values needn't be explained, but for a mutation tool with no annotations, more behavioral details (e.g., side effects, error cases) would enhance completeness.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides a detailed 'Args' section explaining all 7 parameters, adding meaning beyond the schema's titles. For example, it clarifies that 'target_language' expects a 'Full target language name (e.g. "French"),' and notes defaults for source language parameters. However, it doesn't explain parameter interactions or constraints (e.g., if both language name and code are provided).

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 purpose: 'Translate multiple texts to a single target language.' It specifies the verb ('translate'), resource ('multiple texts'), and scope ('to a single target language'), distinguishing it from the sibling 'translate' tool which presumably handles single translations. The description further clarifies use cases: 'localizing lists of strings, UI labels, or i18n files.'

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 clear context for when to use this tool: 'Useful for localizing lists of strings, UI labels, or i18n files.' It implies batch translation scenarios but does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives like the sibling 'translate' tool for single translations. The guidance is helpful but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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