翻訳開始（原文コピーのみ）

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It does so by specifying the exact source and destination paths, the URL-to-filepath transformation (excluding /docs/), and explicitly stating that no translation, redirects, or other file modifications occur. This is strong transparency, though it does not mention conflict handling or return values.

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, dense sentence that communicates purpose, path mapping, and exclusions without redundant filler. Parenthetical clarification and the final exclusion list are information-dense and earn their place. It is front-loaded with the core copy action.

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?

For a simple copy operation, the description is quite complete: it defines inputs, output location, path transformation, and behavioral boundaries. Minor gaps include the absence of return value description (no output schema exists) and failure conditions when the target file already exists (especially since overwrite is a parameter). Still, the essential context is well covered.

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 the schema already explains both parameters (url format and overwrite behavior). The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the URL-to-path mapping context, which is already implied by the purpose. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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 explicitly states the tool copies a Markdown file from the en-US content hierarchy to the corresponding ja translated-content path ('コピーするのみ'). It also clearly delimits scope by listing what it does NOT do (translation, _redirects, other file edits), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like mdn_trans_review or mdn_trans_replace_glossary.

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 as the initial step in a translation workflow by stating it only performs the copy and does not handle translation or other edits. However, it does not explicitly say 'use this when starting a new translation' or directly reference alternative tools for later stages. Context is clear but exclusions are implicit rather than prescriptive.

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