veto_translate

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds value by stating it preserves variables and formatting, which gives insight into the operation's careful handling of structure. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

A single sentence that is concise, front-loaded with the action, and devoid of unnecessary words. Every element 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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, inputs, and a key behavioral trait. However, it omits details about output format (e.g., how translated content is returned) and does not clarify that multiple target languages can be handled simultaneously. With annotations present, it is mostly complete but has minor gaps.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context about the tool's purpose (handling text or i18n files) but does not significantly enhance meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions of each parameter.

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 'translates', the resources 'text or structured i18n files (JSON/YAML)', and specifies constraints 'preserving variables and formatting'. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which are translation-related.

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 usage for translation tasks but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. With no sibling translation tool, the need for explicit guidelines is reduced but still not addressed.

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