sap_translate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the composite multi-step behavior, the conditional write via auto_deploy, preservation of placeholders, and max_length constraint handling. It could add permission or side-effect detail, but the essential behavioral traits are visible.

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 compact and well-structured: a front-loaded summary sentence, a numbered workflow, then two short lines for constraints and supported types. Every sentence contributes distinct information with no filler.

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 composite tool with five parameters and no output schema, the description provides the workflow, input requirements, and important constraints. It stops short of describing the exact shape of the returned translations, which would be useful given there is no output schema, but it is enough for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 already documents all five parameters at 100% coverage. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by explaining the workflow, the auto_deploy gate, placeholder preservation, and supported object types, which helps an agent understand how the parameters interact.

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: it reads translatable texts from a SAP object, translates them with AI, and optionally writes them back. It also enumerates supported object types, making its scope concrete and distinguishing it from nearby read-only or write-only siblings like sap_read_texts and sap_write_translations.

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 workflow and auto_deploy behavior make the intended usage clear: use this when you need AI-driven translation of SAP object texts, with an option to review before writing. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the composite read-translate-write framing provides strong context.

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