delete_translations

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that only translations are cleared, originals and other fields remain, and other chunks are unaffected. It also explains the response behavior. It does not explicitly state that the operation is destructive or irreversible, though 'clear' implies it. This is a minor gap, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core action, followed by essential parameter details, usage scope, and response verification. Every sentence adds value without fluff or repetition.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, behavioral effects, parameter semantics, and response expectations. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 must compensate. It explains chunk_ids in detail (database cache ids, never change, see list_chunks, valid only inside this book). It does not explicitly define book_id, but the context 'this book' makes it clear. This adequately covers both parameters, though book_id could be more explicit.

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: 'Clear the translations of the given chunks' and specifies the purpose 'for rework'. It distinguishes the tool from siblings by explicitly noting that originals and other fields are untouched, making its scope unambiguous.

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?

Provides clear usage context: it tells when to use (for rework), how to obtain valid chunk_ids via list_chunks, and emphasizes that only the specific chunk needs redo ('other chunks are not affected'). It also instructs the agent to verify the echoed book_id and title in the response.

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