godot_add_translation

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Register' is consistent with a mutating (though non-destructive) operation. The description adds the context that the action affects project.godot, which is useful. However, it does not disclose behavior such as overwriting, idempotency, or what happens if the translation already exists. The description adds modest value beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 a single sentence with no superfluous words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool is simple (one required parameter), and the schema covers parameter semantics. However, the description lacks usage guidelines and any note about the tool's effect on the project (e.g., modifies project.godot) beyond the phrase 'in project.godot'. It does not mention prerequisites like file existence or supported formats. Given the simplicity, the description is adequate but not fully complete; an agent might benefit from knowing when to use this vs. godot_get_translations.

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 schema provides full descriptions for both parameters: translation_path (with examples) and test_locale (e.g., 'es', 'de'). The description adds no additional meaning about the parameters. Since schema coverage is effectively 100% (the schema includes descriptions), the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description neither enhances nor diminishes parameter clarity.

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 specific action ('Register') and the resource ('a localization translation file in project.godot'), making it clear what the tool does. It distinguishes from the sibling godot_get_translations by implying a mutating operation, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The verb and object are clear and not a tautology.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions (e.g., when adding a translation might be redundant or require specific file formats). The sibling godot_get_translations exists but is not referenced, leaving the agent to infer usage from the action alone.

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