align

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It reveals the tool is a 'break-glass' operation (implying restricted access or caution) and that CJK targets are not aligned here. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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?

Description is effectively two paragraphs with an 'Args' section, front-loading the main purpose. It is concise and structured, though the Args section could be more compact or integrated into the prose. No wasted words.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown), the description need not detail return values. It covers the tool's purpose, language constraints, and the role of targets. It hints at 'break-glass' but does not elaborate on prerequisites or side effects, which could be improved.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully explains each parameter: source_language must be one of six EU codes, source_text is the source sentence, and targets is a dict mapping language codes to translated text. This adds substantial value beyond the schema's type definitions.

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?

Description clearly states the tool is for EU↔EU token alignment of one source sentence to per-target translations, using the verb 'align' and specifying resource 'token-alignment'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting that CJK targets are handled by cwseg during ingest.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (EU languages) and when not to (CJK targets, which are handled by cwseg). However, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus other sibling tools like gloss_tokens or regloss_chapter_tokens, though the specialized nature makes it clear.

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