Translate Image

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context such as 'Costs 1 credit' and the use of asset_id, but it does not specify whether the existing alt text is replaced or added to, nor does it mention permissions, reversibility, or return values. This is a moderate gap given the lack of 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?

The description is three short sentences that are front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by supporting details (asset_id usage and cost). It is appropriately sized with no wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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 is simple (2 required params, no output schema), and the description covers the core purpose and a key behavioral trait (cost). It could be more complete by explaining what happens to the existing alt text or what the tool returns, but given the low complexity and schema richness, it is reasonably complete. Minor gaps remain.

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 input schema already provides full descriptions for both asset_id and lang (100% coverage). The description adds little beyond restating that asset_id identifies the image and lang is the new language, which is already clear from the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Add alt text in a new language') and the target resource ('an existing image'), using a specific verb and distinguishing it from sibling tools like generate_alt_text. It also mentions the key identifier (asset_id), reinforcing the tool's purpose.

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 implies the tool is for existing images by saying 'for an existing image' and 'Uses the asset_id to find the image,' but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like generate_alt_text or state when to choose this tool over others. Usage guidance is inferred, not stated.

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