sap_write_translations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly indicates a persistent save operation ('Equivalent to saving translations in SE63') and implies updating existing text entries via text_id. However, it does not mention permissions, whether existing translations are overwritten, reversibility, or failure 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?

Four short sentences, each adding value: purpose, SE63 equivalence, payload guidance, and supported object types. The main action is front-loaded and there is 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?

The description covers purpose, payload, and supported object types well, but for a mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations it should also mention what happens on success, whether writes overwrite existing translations, and any permission expectations. Those gaps leave it slightly incomplete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of text_id from sap_read_translations and translated_text mostly echoes the schema's own property descriptions. It adds little beyond restating the array-of-translations shape.

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 action ('Writes translated texts back to a SAP object') and the resource, then reinforces it with the SE63 saving analogy and the list of supported object types. This makes it easy to distinguish from write-code siblings because the scope is specifically translation texts.

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 gives clear workflow context: text_id comes from sap_read_translations, so an agent can infer this is the write-back counterpart to the translation-reading flow. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the provided context is strong enough for correct routing.

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