add_translation_key

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

There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It mentions adding values but omits side effects such as overwrite behavior, automatic backup creation, and namespace defaults. This leaves the agent unaware of important mutation consequences.

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, well-structured sentence that leads with the action verb and resource. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema. The rich schema covers parameter semantics, but the description alone does not convey behavioral context like overwrite/backup defaults or when to use this tool over sibling sync/scan tools. It is minimally complete but has clear gaps.

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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for all 5 parameters (100% coverage), including examples and defaults. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond restating that translations target languages and namespaces, so a baseline score of 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?

The description uses a specific verb 'add' and names the resource 'translation key' with explicit detail about values, languages, and namespaces. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools that focus on syncing, scanning, or reporting missing keys.

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 implies usage for adding a single specific key manually, which contrasts with bulk sync/scan siblings, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. The context of sibling names helps, but the description itself does not direct the agent.

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