bulkWriteTranslations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies a write/mutation operation, it doesn't specify permission requirements, whether changes are reversible, error handling for partial failures, or rate limits. The efficiency claim is vague without concrete performance characteristics.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Update multiple translations') followed by the operational context ('in batch for efficient bulk operations'). Every word serves a purpose with zero redundancy.

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 mutation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the tool's purpose and batch nature but lacks critical behavioral details about permissions, error handling, and response format that would be needed for confident agent usage.

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%, providing complete parameter documentation. The description adds no specific parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3. It doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., how projectSlug, componentSlug, and languageCode work together).

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 action ('Update multiple translations') and resource ('translations'), with the qualifier 'in batch for efficient bulk operations' distinguishing it from the sibling 'writeTranslation' tool. However, it doesn't explicitly name the alternative single-write tool, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 context ('for efficient bulk operations') suggesting this should be used when updating many translations at once rather than individually. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or directly reference the 'writeTranslation' sibling as the alternative for single updates.

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