register_translation

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 only reveals that the tool performs an upsert ('create or update'), but does not explain how existing translations are handled, whether marketId is part of the uniqueness key, or any side effects, permissions, or error conditions.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and object. It contains zero filler and is appropriately sized for the tool's straightforward purpose.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must carry the weight. It is too terse to be complete: it fails to explain the uniqueness key (resourceId + locale + key possibly + marketId), the optional nature of marketId, or the behavior when a translation already exists. An agent would lack critical information for safe invocation.

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?

The schema descriptions cover all five parameters, including the optional marketId and a clear resourceId example. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Create or update' with the object 'a translation for a resource,' clearly conveying an upsert operation. It distinguishes itself from sibling translation tools like get_translations_for_resource and remove_translations, though it could be more explicit about the resource scope or locale dimensions.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is the tool for adding or modifying translations, nor does it exclude cases like removing translations. The description lacks any situational context.

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