validate_translations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Validate' implies a read-only or analysis operation, but the description doesn't specify if this tool modifies data, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or provides detailed output. It lacks context on what 'quality and consistency' entails, such as error reporting or scoring, making it insufficient for a mutation-aware agent.

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: 'Validate translation quality and consistency'. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero waste, and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 has no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'validate' entails in terms of behavior, output format, or error handling. With 2 parameters and siblings offering related functionality, more context is needed to guide an agent effectively, such as whether this is a read-only check or has implications for translation workflows.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for 'checks' and 'target_locales'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, as it doesn't explain parameter interactions, default behaviors, or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 states the tool's purpose as 'Validate translation quality and consistency', which is clear but somewhat vague. It specifies the action (validate) and domain (translations) but doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'analyze_translation_context' or 'find_missing_translations', nor does it specify what resources are being validated. This is adequate but lacks specificity.

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. With siblings like 'find_missing_translations' and 'analyze_translation_context', it's unclear if this tool is for pre-save validation, post-translation checks, or general quality assurance. There are no explicit when/when-not statements or named alternatives, leaving usage ambiguous.

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