write_chunk

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the translation is stripped before writing to match plugin behavior, that engine name and target language are recorded, that a UI alignment check is replicated and mismatched block counts produce a warning, and that writing is irreversible. This goes well beyond a simple 'writes a chunk' statement.

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 dense but every sentence adds information: stripping behavior, id semantics, alignment check, overwrite behavior, and irreversibility. It is front-loaded with the core action. Slightly long, but no filler; a 4 reflects that it earns its length.

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 (mutation, alignment check, overwrite semantics, book-scoped ids) and the absence of annotations, the description covers all critical operational aspects. The output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed. An agent has enough to call this correctly and avoid destructive mistakes.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains chunk_id as the book's database cache id and clarifies overwrite=False behavior. It does not detail book_id or translation format, but the description's clarification of the two most subtle parameters is meaningful. A 4 is appropriate because it adds significant semantic value without fully documenting every parameter.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Write the full translation of one chunk.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting the chunk_id is this book's database cache id and referencing list_chunks. The scope is clear and the tool is not confused with get_translation or delete_translations.

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 explicitly says chunk_id is valid only inside this book, warns to verify book_id because writing is irreversible, and explains overwrite=False behavior. It also references list_chunks as the source of chunk ids, giving the agent a clear path for correct invocation. This is strong usage guidance.

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