ai_translate_story

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic function without mentioning side effects (e.g., in-place modification, version creation), required permissions, rate limits, or response behavior. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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, concise sentence at 8 words. It is front-loaded and efficient, but the brevity sacrifices useful details. It earns its place by being clear, but could be expanded without becoming verbose.

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 has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain what happens after translation (e.g., return value, impact on story), the role of 'overwrite', or how language parameters interact. An AI agent would lack critical context to use the tool correctly.

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%, with each parameter having a description in the input schema. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline is 3 because the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description does not compensate.

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 is a clear verb+resource statement: 'Translates a story's content into a specified language using AI.' It specifically identifies the action (translate), the resource (story's content), and the method (AI). Among siblings, no other tool performs translation, so it is well-distinguished.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use or avoid this tool. While the tool is unique among siblings, lacking usage context (e.g., prerequisites, limitations) reduces clarity. It neither recommends nor warns about scenarios, leaving the agent to infer from the name.

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