sync_translations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key safe behavior: 'Default is dry_run=true for preview,' and the incremental sync behavior. However, it does not disclose actual side effects of a real run (e.g., writing to files, modifying existing translations), which is a notable gap for a sync tool.

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 concise at two sentences and front-loads the core purpose and key behavior. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or 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 and a key safety default, but for a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, it omits important context like what happens after a real sync, whether files are modified, or what the preview output includes. The schema descriptions help, but overall completeness is moderate.

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 adds some context around adding new languages and incremental syncing, but the schema already documents parameter details like dry_run and write_to_files. No additional parameter semantics are provided beyond what the schema offers.

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: 'Add new languages or sync existing translations via LangAPI.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools that list locales or fetch status, making it the action tool for translation updates.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (adding/syncing translations) and explains its incremental behavior ('only translates what's new or changed'). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, but the use case is unambiguous given the siblings.

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