delete_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 provides useful constraints (objectType values, table requirement for column/measure/hierarchy) and clarifies scope ('ONE' translation). However, it does not disclose irreversibility, behavior when the translation does not exist, return values, or any side effects beyond deletion, leaving important context to inference.

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 concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by the necessary objectType clarifications. Every sentence contributes essential information with no fluff or repetition.

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 relatively simple delete operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what is deleted, which properties, which object types, and a key prerequisite (table). It lacks explicit guidance on alternative tools and edge-case behavior (e.g., missing translation), but overall it provides sufficient context for the tool's intended use.

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 coverage is high (83%), but the description adds meaningful context not present in the schema: it specifies the allowed objectType values and the rule that column/measure/hierarchy require the 'table' parameter. It also clarifies that 'property' refers to Caption, Description, or DisplayFolder, which is not enumerated in the schema. This adds value beyond the raw parameter descriptions.

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 (delete), the resource (one object translation), and the specific properties affected (Caption / Description / DisplayFolder). It also enumerates the objectType values and notes the table dependency for certain types, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_translation and list_translations.

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?

The description makes the tool's purpose clear but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as set_translation or list_translations. It implies usage for deleting a single translation of a specific property, but lacks guidance on cases where one should use a different tool, such as when deleting an entire culture or bulk operations.

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