Merge translation files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so excellently. It discloses the dry-run behavior with whatIf, the mutation of a live environment, the confirm requirement, and that only some inputs mutate (guiding the agent to parameter descriptions). It also mentions the actual pac command and auth profile, which is valuable behavioral context.

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 composed of four tightly-packed sentences, each earning its place: core purpose, whatIf preview, underlying command and auth, and mutation/confirm behavior. It is front-loaded and structured logically, with no filler or redundant content.

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 complexity of 11 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential high-level semantics: import direction, target scope, dry-run behavior, mutation safety, and the confirm gate. It appropriately points to parameter descriptions for details and explains the overall workflow well as a standalone definition.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds a useful meta-note that only some inputs mutate)Skip mentioning 'see the parameter descriptions', but this does not materially enhance parameter meaning beyond the already-comprehensive schema. No additional detail on any specific parameter is provided.

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 a specific verb ('Import'), resource (translated .resx or .json files), and target ('back into one or more agents'), with scope ('environment or unpacked solution folder'). It distinguishes itself from sibling cs_extract_translations by using 'back' to indicate the reverse direction, and mentions the underlying pac command, so an agent can unambiguously identify what it does.

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 context on how to use the tool: it previews with whatIf, requires confirm: true for actual mutation, and runs with the active pac auth profile. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus a sibling like cs_extract_translations, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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