translate_subtitle

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

Annotations are sparse (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), and the description adds genuine context by disclosing that timestamp/cue-count validation, caching, and provenance are applied regardless of backend. This goes beyond what the annotations declare and does not contradict them, though it omits auth requirements and rate-limit behavior.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the core purpose and backend options lead, and the common applied features follow in a dense second sentence. The structure is front-loaded and efficient, though the Korean phrasing may present minor accessibility friction for some agents.

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 an 11-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and zero parameter coverage, this description is insufficient — an agent cannot determine the meaning of time_start/time_end, line_start/line_end, batch_size, glossary, or what the tool returns on success or failure. The description covers only purpose and backend, leaving the invocation contract largely undocumented.

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 11 parameters, so the description carries the full burden but only explains the backend parameter values (auto/api/claude/codex). The other ten parameters (force, dry_run, glossary, line_end, time_end, batch_size, line_start, time_start, target_language, subtitle) are left with only their bare schema titles and defaults.

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 states a clear verb ('번역합니다' / translates) and resource (자막 / subtitles), and adds specificity by naming the three backend options (Anthropic API, Claude Code CLI, Codex CLI). Siblings like load_subtitle, list_subtitles, and status perform clearly different operations, so an agent can infer the purpose, though the description never explicitly differentiates itself from related tools.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives — there are no conditions, exclusions, or routing to sibling tools. The only usage hint is the backend value set (auto/api/claude/codex), which tells the agent which values are available but not which scenario calls for the tool.

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