create_and_translate_missing_languages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the core mutations (creating directories and translating strings.xml) but does not mention potential side effects, such as whether existing files are overwritten, whether network calls are made, or what the return value is.

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, front-loaded sentence that contains all necessary information without extraneous detail. Every word earns its place.

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 simple tool shape (one optional parameter, no output schema) the description is adequate for basic invocation, but it omits explicit guidance on when to use this tool relative to sibling tools and does not mention return values. It is complete enough for a simple scenario but leaves some ambiguity when compared to translate_module.

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 single parameter projectRoot is fully described in the schema as an optional Android project root directory. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 creates missing language directories and translates the default strings.xml into them, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on missing languages and the default strings.xml source.

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 implies usage for missing languages through its name and phrasing, but does not explicitly state when to choose it over translate_all_modules or translate_module. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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