translate_story

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool uses AI for translation, which implies potential latency or quality variations, but doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like whether it modifies the original story, creates a new version, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what the output looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 very concise with two short sentences, front-loading the main purpose. There's no unnecessary information, but it might be overly brief given the lack of detail in other dimensions. Every sentence serves a purpose, though more could be added for clarity.

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?

Given the complexity of a translation operation (likely a mutation), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover key aspects like what the tool returns, error conditions, or how it interacts with the story system. For a tool with 2 parameters and no structured support, this leaves significant gaps.

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%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description only mentions 'Optional lang_code', ignoring the required 'story_id' parameter. It doesn't explain what 'story_id' refers to, what format 'lang_code' should be in (e.g., ISO codes), or default behaviors. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 ('Translate') and the resource ('a story'), specifying it uses AI. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_story' or 'update_story' by focusing on translation rather than creation or modification. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from tools like 'duplicate_story' in terms of language transformation vs. content copying.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'Optional lang_code' but doesn't explain when to include it, what happens if omitted, or how this differs from other story-related operations like 'duplicate_story' or 'publish_story'. There's no context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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