save_translations

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. It states the tool saves translations but doesn't reveal critical traits: whether this is a destructive write operation (overwrites existing files), what permissions are required, how errors are handled (e.g., invalid locales), or what happens on success (e.g., confirmation message). The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

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 directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core action ('Save'). Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool's complexity (a write operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address behavioral risks (e.g., file overwrites), success/failure responses, or integration with sibling tools (e.g., whether to validate first). For a mutation tool in a translation management context, more operational guidance is needed to ensure safe and correct 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%, so the schema fully documents the single parameter 'translations' as an array of objects with key, locale, and translation fields. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain format expectations (e.g., locale codes like 'en-US'), validation rules, or batch size limits. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high 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 ('Save') and resource ('translations to locale files'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'validate_translations' or 'find_missing_translations' by focusing on persistence rather than analysis or discovery. However, it doesn't specify whether this creates new translations or updates existing ones, which prevents 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'translate_key' or 'translate_namespace'. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether translations must be validated first), nor any indication of when not to use it (e.g., for single translations vs. batches). The context is implied but not explicitly stated.

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