eda_sys_i18n_import_multilingual

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait: it throws an error in standalone scripts, and returns a boolean indicating success. However, it does not describe potential side effects like overwriting existing translations or persistence behavior. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and it partially covers this by noting the throw condition and return type, but misses other important behaviors.

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, consisting of a signature, a short Chinese description, a remark, and a returns line. It is front-loaded with the signature, making it efficient. The Chinese phrase '导入多语言' is somewhat redundant with the signature's 'importMultilingual', but overall the structure is compact and well-organized.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description needs to cover return type and key behaviors. It does state the return type (boolean) and the critical failure mode (throws in standalone). However, it lacks details on parameter constraints, side effects, and how the source data is structured. Given the tool's complexity and the absence of other metadata, it is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

The signature in the description defines the parameters as 'language: string' and 'source: TSYS_LanguageKeyValuePairs', adding meaning beyond the generic schema that only has an args array. This clarifies the expected arguments, though it does not explain the structure of TSYS_LanguageKeyValuePairs or the expected language code format, which would be useful. Given the schema coverage is effectively nil for actual parameters, this is a valuable addition.

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 'import' and the resource 'multilingual' via the signature and Chinese phrase '导入多语言'. It conveys the action precisely, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like eda_sys_i18n_import_multilingual_language and eda_sys_i18n_import_multilingual_namespace, which may have overlapping purposes. Thus, it's clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 remarks provide a specific condition: '本接口仅扩展有效，在独立脚本环境内调用将始终 throw Error', indicating it only works in extension environments and will throw an error in standalone scripts. This is useful usage guidance, but it does not mention alternatives or when to prefer this tool over similar siblings. Therefore, it gives clear context but no exclusions or alternatives.

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