netintel_translate_structured

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does a good job on the core trait: it enumerates exactly which elements survive translation (keys, tags, markdown, URLs, emails, variables, placeholders, code blocks, brand names) and notes caller-glossary honoring. It stops short of auth needs, rate limits, failure modes, or output shape, and the sentence is cut off mid-clause ('and…').

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 first clause is well front-loaded and dense with useful specifics, but the text terminates with a dangling 'and…', which signals an incomplete description rather than deliberate brevity. Value per word is high in what survives; the truncation is the defect.

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 9-parameter tool with nested objects, zero annotation coverage, zero schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description does not supply enough to call the tool correctly. Language codes, tone/formality options, content_type values, and the required source/target pairing are all unspecified.

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 0% across 9 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It gestures at 'content' (structured content) and 'glossary' (caller glossary), and 'protected_values' is only obliquely implied by the preservation list, while source, target, locale, tone, formality, and content_type are never explained.

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?

States a specific verb ('Translate') plus the resource class ('structured content') and enumerates concrete formats (JSON, HTML, Markdown, templates, UI strings). The 'without breaking structure' qualifier implicitly separates it from the plain translate siblings, though it never names netintel_translate / netintel_translate_short directly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the right tool when input is structured markup rather than prose, and that netintel_translate_short / netintel_translate handle plain text. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, prerequisite, or named alternative anywhere in the text.

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