generate_po_template

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Создать/обновить' (create/update), implying a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether it's idempotent, what happens on conflicts, or output format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence in Russian, front-loaded with the core action. It wastes no words, making it appropriately concise. However, the structure is minimal and could benefit from slight elaboration for clarity, but it earns high marks for brevity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (mutation with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the PO template's purpose, parameter semantics, or behavioral context, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand and use the tool effectively.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to explain what 'app_id' and 'locale' represent (e.g., app identifier and language code) or their impact. With 2 parameters and no schema descriptions, this leaves semantics unclear, scoring below the baseline of 3 for high coverage.

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 ('Создать/обновить' meaning 'Create/update') and resource ('PO шаблон для приложения' meaning 'PO template for application'), which clarifies the tool's purpose. However, it's vague about what a 'PO template' entails and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'create_theme' or 'create_ui_component', which might involve similar template creation. The description is functional but lacks specificity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'create_app_structure', 'create_theme', and 'create_ui_component', there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. It fails to help an agent decide between this and other creation/update tools in the set.

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