add_multiple_translations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses batching semantics ('writes once per locale file') and the non-obvious locales filter behavior (other locales in entries are ignored) — a real side-effect worth flagging. However, it never says what happens to existing keys on update, whether writes are destructive/overwriting, or what the call returns.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core operation and followed by the efficiency rationale and the filter nuance. Little waste, though 'More efficient than repeated add_translation calls' overlaps with 'Prefer this for bulk work.'

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and two undocumented parameters, the description should clarify conflict/overwrite behavior and results. It covers bulk semantics and the locales filter adequately but leaves the namespace/entries contract and update side effects unspecified.

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 only 33%, so the description is expected to compensate. It does add genuine meaning for the locales filter ('others in translations are ignored'), going beyond the schema text. But namespace and the nested entries/translations structure are left undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb pair (add or update), a specific resource (translation keys), and the scoping trait (multiple, in one operation). It also names the sibling it supersedes (add_translation), so an agent can distinguish it from the single-key variant without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes bulk work here and names add_translation as the repeated-call alternative, which is clear when-to-use guidance. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g. a single key), so it does not hit the full when/when-not/alternatives bar.

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