Localize a static ad into other languages

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

The description discloses substantial behavioral context beyond the sparse annotations: it reads the ad's text (3 credits), performs one image edit per language, preserves brand/product names, URLs and prices, proofreads outputs, and flags mismatches via textCheck instead of silently re-rendering. It also mentions pricing before execution and never silently re-renders. The annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) are consistent and the description adds critical operational detail not present in structured fields.

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 longer than average but every sentence carries essential information: scope, input format, credits, translation approach, proofreading flag, pricing, and the video alternative. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and ends with the routing note. Slightly dense, but no filler; earns a 4.

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 (translation, editing, proofreading, credits, pricing) and the absence of an output schema, the description covers most operational details: inputs, constraints, credit cost, quality checks, and the video alternative. It does not explicitly state the output format or that one edited image is returned per language, though 'one image edit per language' implies it. That minor gap keeps it from a 5.

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% for the two required parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: image must be a 'finished static ad', languages are limited to 5 with practical examples (['Spanish', 'German', 'French (Canada)']), and it clarifies that translation is copywriting-style with preservation of key terms. This enriches parameter understanding without duplicating the schema.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Translate the on-image text of ONE finished static ad into other languages'. It explicitly distinguishes itself from dub_video for video content法宝 and implies preservation of layout, typeface, and colors, which separates it from generic image editors like edit_image or remix_static. The purpose is unambiguous even without reading the schema.

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?

States when to use this tool: on a finished static ad, with image and up to five languages. It explicitly names the alternative for videos ('For a VIDEO use dub_video') and emphasizes the input must be a finished static ad, signaling it is not for drafts or video content. This gives the agent clear selection criteria among siblings.

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