Update Article Translation

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

Annotations already indicate write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and destructive behavior (destructiveHint=true). The description adds that the tool 'replaces the FULL body and re-sends the entire article on each write,' confirming idempotentHint=true and highlighting network cost. No contradictions.

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, front-loaded with purpose, then usage guideline. No redundant or irrelevant information. Every sentence adds value.

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?

With 5 parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the main purpose and behavioral traits. Missing explanation for the 'draft' parameter and specifics on locale format, but provides enough context for an AI to use the tool correctly given the sibling differentiation.

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 description must compensate. It only mentions 'title, body' parameters explicitly in the purpose, leaving 'draft', 'locale', and 'article_id' unexplained. Missing details on what 'draft' does or how 'locale' values are determined.

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 'Update article content (title, body) in a specific locale,' specifying both the verb (update) and resource (article translation). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'update_article_section' by contrasting full-body replacement vs targeted edits.

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?

Explicitly advises when to use this tool vs. update_article_section: 'For targeted edits on one or a few sections, prefer update_article_section.' Also provides guidance on selecting the locale parameter using get_article's source_locale.

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