translate_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the operation creates a sibling, is asynchronous (returns in <1s), and the sibling starts as 'draft' then changes to 'final' after ~30–90s. This goes beyond the simple verb 'translate' and provides useful expectations for the agent. It doesn't mention failure modes or permissions, but the async behavior is well covered.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, and the second explains the crucial background behavior and gives actionable polling instructions. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 is moderately complex due to its asynchronous nature, but the description covers the essential workflow (background task, immediate return, polling). Since an output schema exists, the description is not required to detail return values. It could mention permission requirements or error handling, but for a translation tool, the provided context is sufficient.

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 each parameter (report_id, target_language, model) already has descriptions. The tool description does not add additional parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable per the baseline rule. The information about 'another language' aligns with target_language but adds no new semantics.

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 clearly states the verb 'Translate' and the resource 'an existing report', while also distinguishing the tool from siblings by explaining it creates a sibling report in the same analysis_group and runs as a background task. This is specific and contrasts with tools like translate_brief or get_report.

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 clear usage guidance: it explains the tool returns immediately and instructs the agent to poll get_report(sibling_id) until the status flips to 'final'. It also gives a timing estimate. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or discuss alternatives like translate_brief, leaving a slight gap.

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