Translate Key

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, and the description explains the tool can 'overwrite existing stale target translations', clarifying its mutating behavior. It mentions dryRun for previewing changes. No behavioral contradictions with annotations are present, though additional details on required permissions or side effects would strengthen 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 extremely concise at two sentences, with no wasted words. It front-loads the main purpose and immediately provides key differentiation. Every sentence earns its place.

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 has 9 parameters (3 required) and no output schema, the description provides a sufficient high-level overview and the critical distinction from a sibling. However, it does not outline typical usage steps or edge cases, leaving some completeness to the well-documented schema. It is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add significant new meaning beyond the parameter descriptions; it primarily explains the tool's operation. While it ties the 'overwrite' parameter to the distinction from translate_missing, it does not enrich understanding of individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 tool 'adds/updates one source translation key and translates it into target locales', using specific verbs and a defined resource. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'translate_missing' by noting the ability to overwrite stale translations, providing clear 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?

The description explicitly contrasts with 'translate_missing', indicating when to use this tool (when overwriting is needed) versus when not (use translate_missing for only filling missing translations). It provides clear context but does not cover all sibling alternatives or when to avoid using the tool altogether.

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