Move every page to another locale

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and the description adds meaningful specifics: every page path changes, all external links break, and a confirmation token is required. It communicates bulk whole-wiki scope beyond the schema, though it does not discuss reversibility or what happens to the source locale.

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?

Four short sentences, each adding distinct value: scope, typical use case, external consequence, and confirmation requirement. The action is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 destructive bulk operation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, use case, consequences, and confirmation, while the schema covers parameter formats. It stops short of a 5 by not spelling out the two-step confirmation call flow or return behavior, though those are largely inferable.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to explain parameters in depth. It mentions the confirmation token but adds no finer semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Moves all pages from one locale to another, across the whole wiki.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling move_page tool, which handles a single page, and the title reinforces the bulk scope.

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?

It gives the canonical trigger ('usual reason is a wiki set up under the wrong locale code') and the major cost ('every external link into the wiki breaks'), which tells an agent when this heavy operation is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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