remove_translations

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

The description only restates the basic function without disclosing behavioral details like permanence, required permissions, or what happens to the resource if all translations are removed. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and fails to provide any meaningful safety or side-effect information.

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 with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It omits essential details about the removal process, making it too terse to be considered well-structured for an AI agent.

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 4 parameters and no output schema, yet the description provides no information about return values, side effects, or the scope of what 'remove translations' entails. The description is too sparse to give an agent sufficient context for a mutation operation, especially given the presence of many related sibling tools.

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 no additional parameter context beyond naming the resource generically, but the schema already fully documents each parameter (e.g., locales, translationKeys, resourceId), so the tool meets the minimum viability threshold.

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 states the action ('Remove') and object ('translations') clearly, with the qualifier 'from a resource' indicating the scope. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'register_translation' or 'get_translations_for_resource', leaving the exact resource type and removal behavior ambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as registering a new translation or fetching existing ones. It neither states prerequisites nor provides exclusions, so an agent lacks context for choosing this over similar translation-related tools.

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