Link Entry Translation

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: merging (no unlink via API), require update API key ability, and checks that entries exist and have different locales. While it doesn't cover idempotency or rate limits, the important behavioral constraints are well communicated.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: first defines purpose, second adds constraints, third provides limitation and auth requirement. No redundancy, directly helpful.

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 no output schema, the description covers what the tool does (merge into translation group), prerequisites (existing entries, different locales, same collection), limitations (no unlink), and auth requirement (update ability). Sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to use.

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 coverage is 100% (all three params described), so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond schema: it explains the 'anchor' role of uuid, emphasizes that translation_entry_uuid must be a different locale, and clarifies that collection_slug identifies the collection. This enriches understanding.

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 'Merge two entries in the same collection into one translation group', specifying the verb (merge/link), resource (entries), and context (translation group, same collection, different locales). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like create_entry or update_entry which deal with individual entries, not linking.

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?

Explicitly states conditions: 'Both entries must exist, belong to this collection, and have different locales.' Also provides a when-not: 'There is no unlink via API — use the dashboard if you need to split a group.' This gives clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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