Write translations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real context: files are created when missing (language_data.xml, <module>_strings.xml), existing ids are updated in place, and a warning fires on placeholder mismatch. It does not mention that the `remove` parameter deletes ids, which is the most destructive behavior here.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: the primary action and target location come first, with file-creation and update semantics packed into one parenthetical. No filler sentences, though the parenthetical is heavy enough to slow a quick read.

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?

With annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema to explain, the description is nearly sufficient: it covers target files, creation, in-place updates, and placeholder validation. The gap is the deletion semantics of `remove` and any indication of return/confirmation behavior.

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 schema already documents all seven parameters, making 3 the baseline. The description adds only indirect parameter context (placeholder validation tied to `translations`), with no elaboration on `remove`, `file` defaults, or id handling beyond 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?

States a specific verb (writes), a specific resource (translations for one language), and a precise scope (the module's ModuleData/Languages/<folder>/ files). The write semantics clearly distinguish it from read-oriented siblings like l10n_scan and l10n_status.

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 conveys the operation but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative (e.g. l10n_scan for reading, l10n_status for checking coverage). Usage is inferable from the verb and resource, but nothing routes the agent decisively.

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