apply-text-translations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: it preserves font/size/box formatting and reports overflow on box-text layers. This goes beyond a bare 'apply translations' statement by telling the agent what side effects to expect, though it does not mention reversibility or project save requirements.

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 with zero filler. The core action, resource, preservation qualifier, and an important side-effect are all front-loaded and clearly worded. Every clause earns its place.

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 one-parameter, mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: target, preservation behavior, and overflow reporting. It could be more complete by explicitly tying into the match-glossary pipeline and stating prerequisites, but the schema parameter fills in the pipeline link.

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?

There is only one parameter, translationsPath, and the schema already describes it completely (path to translations.json, produced by match-glossary, defaults to the last match). The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Apply'), a clear resource ('matched translations back onto their text layers in After Effects'), and unique scope (preserving font/size/box formatting, reporting overflow). This distinguishes it from sibling pipeline tools like extract-text-layers and match-glossary, whose purposes are opposite or earlier in the workflow.

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 this tool is used after translations have been matched ('Apply matched translations'), and the schema parameter references translations.json produced by match-glossary. However, the description itself does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like running match-glossary first.

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