translate_and_validate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the combined operations and mentions the auditFirst parameter default, but does not explain what happens if validation fails, output format, or side effects. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

Two sentences, concise and front-loaded. First sentence states purpose, second gives usage recommendation. No wasted words.

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 no output schema and two parameters, the description covers purpose and recommendation but lacks details on return values, error conditions, or step ordering. Adequate for selection but insufficient for full invocation understanding.

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 100% with descriptions for both parameters (text and auditFirst). The tool description reiterates the audit and translate context but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

Description clearly states the tool does three things (audit, translate, validate) in one call with the phrase 'audita, traduz e valida em uma única chamada'. This distinguishes it from siblings like audit_content (only audit) or validate_gloss (only validation).

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?

Description explicitly recommends use for most translation requests ('Use para a maioria dos pedidos de tradução'), giving clear guidance on when to apply. Lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the recommendation is strong.

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