Write Translations

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It discloses key behaviors: keys are inserted in alphabetical order, dryRun previews without writing, and modes' effects. Missing details on error handling or auth, but core behavior is well-covered.

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 well-structured, front-loading the main action and using multiple sentences for clarity. While each sentence adds value, it could be slightly more concise without losing information.

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 (5 params, nested object) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is relatively complete. It explains modes, key order, dryRun, and provides formatting examples, but could add more on expected output or error cases.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds significant value beyond the schema: it explains the translations parameter's correct format with examples of wrong vs correct usage, and clarifies that dryRun previews without writing. This greatly aids correct invocation.

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 writes translation key-value pairs to a layer, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_translations and remove_translations by focusing on writing.

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 clear guidance on the three modes (upsert, add, update) and dryRun usage, which helps the agent choose the right mode. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare it to alternative tools like translate_key.

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