Translate Image

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

Annotations already flag readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false. The description adds the meaningful side effect of consuming account credits per language, which is beyond what annotations capture. It also implies a generation process that may have latency. No contradiction with annotations.

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 with zero filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the credit cost is stated concisely. Efficient and well-structured.

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 simple two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and annotations indicating mutation and non-idempotency, the description covers the essential purpose, cost, and mechanism. It lacks mention of return format or latency, but those are not critical for correct invocation given the context signals.

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 both parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description reinforces the role of asset_id in locating the image but adds no new semantic detail about lang beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('alt text in a new language for an existing image'), with the asset_id mechanism. It clearly differentiates from generate_alt_text by emphasizing translation of existing alt text, so an agent can infer the right tool without ambiguity.

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 provides clear context (uses asset_id, generates translation, consumes credits) but does not explicitly state when to use this versus generate_alt_text or when not to use it. No exclusions are given, so the agent must infer the boundary from the purpose statement.

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