dubbing_set_translation

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

With annotations already declaring non-destructive, idempotent, non-open-world behavior, the description still adds real value: the merge/upsert semantics of the translation map (subsequent calls only touch supplied ids) and the content of the fit check (over-long lines and missing ids). It stops short of explaining whether the title/description overwrite prior values or how max_speedup influences the fit result.

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 core write operation and its payload shape, followed by the return behavior. The parentheticals are dense but each carries information; nothing is redundant padding.

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 6-parameter mutation with a nested object, the merge semantics and fit-check summary cover the essentials, and an output schema exists so return values need not be detailed here. Still missing is any notion of valid language values, what max_speedup controls, and whether title/description are replaced or merged.

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 carry the load, yet it only explains translations (as a segment_id→text map), title, and description. It says nothing about language, project_id, or especially max_speedup (default 1.25), which is directly tied to the reported fit check and is not inferable from the schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource (save translated lines per target language), states the exact payload shape ({segment_id: text}), and mentions the optional localized YouTube title/description. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as dubbing_get_segments or dubbing_set_voice, but the write-vs-read and per-language scope is unmistakable from the text itself.

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?

It says the data can be submitted all at once or in batches and that later calls update only the ids given, which implies an incremental workflow. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to alternatives (e.g., after extracting segments, before dubbing_render) and no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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