localize_template

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

With no annotations provided, the description effectively discloses key behaviors: translations must include node IDs and inner HTML only, Jinja rules, image override format, RTL support, source versioning, and the publish/force logic. It does not describe where the localized template is saved or permissions needed.

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 well-structured with bullet points for different sections (translations, Jinja, image_overrides, etc.). It is front-loaded with the main purpose. While slightly lengthy, every sentence provides value, making it effective.

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 (15 params, 9 required) and no annotations, the description covers translations, image overrides, RTL, source version, and publishing behavior. Minor gaps exist for some required parameters and the exact storage destination. The presence of an output schema partially compensates for return details.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It adds meaning for translations, image_overrides, rtl, source_version, publish, and force (6 of 15 params). However, required parameters like source_external_template_id, target_template_id, target_template_name, target_template_version, subject, sender_name, created_by, and preview_text are not explained beyond their schema names.

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 tool's purpose: 'Create a localized version of an existing template for a target market.' It uses a specific verb ('localize') and resource ('template'), differentiating it from sibling tools like analyze_template or build_email_template.

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 detailed usage context, including formatting rules for translations, Jinja, and image_overrides, as well as conditions for publish and force. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like patch_template_text or update_template.

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