WPML Übersetzung erstellen

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only says 'creates a translation' without detailing side effects such as overwriting existing translations, requiring WPML configuration, or needing specific permissions. It does not mention what happens on failure or whether the operation is reversible.

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, concise sentence that clearly states the tool's function. It is front-loaded and wastes no words. Although it might be too brief for the tool's complexity, it is not verbose, and every word earns its place. Similar single-sentence descriptions in the calibration examples scored 4.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and five parameters. The description provides only a minimal statement of intent, lacking essential context such as return values, behavior when a translation already exists, or relationship to WPML workflow. It does not address the complexity implied by the schema and sibling tools, making it incomplete.

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 has 100% coverage for parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information, but the schema already explains each field clearly (e.g., 'Übersetzter Titel', 'Original Post-ID', 'Zielsprache'). Thus, the description does not need to compensate, and a score 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 states a clear action: 'Erstellt eine Übersetzung für einen Post' (Creates a translation for a post). It identifies the verb (create) and resource (translation for a post), so purpose is clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like ml_duplicate_for_translation or wpml_get_post_translations, which also relate to translations, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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. The description simply states what it does without mentioning when it should be preferred over similar tools, such as wpml_get_post_translations for reading or ml_duplicate_for_translation for duplication. No exclusions or alternative references are provided.

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