add_translation

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 upsert semantics and the partial-write guarantee ("other locales are unchanged"), which is real value beyond the schema. It omits what happens to an existing value being overwritten, whether the namespace must pre-exist, and any auth or error behavior.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the key format and the write-scope caveat. Every sentence contributes; no padding or redundancy.

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 3-required-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core semantics (upsert, partial locale write) but leaves the namespace parameter and overwrite/error behavior unaddressed. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 67%, and the description largely restates the key's dot-notation format already documented in the schema. It does add locale-scope meaning to the translations map ("across one or more locales", "only the provided locales are written"), but the namespace parameter remains undocumented in both places. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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/update) and resource (translation key), and the word "single" implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling add_multiple_translations. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, but an agent can tell the two apart from the text alone.

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 phrase "add or update" communicates upsert intent, which is useful for deciding when to call it, and the note that only provided locales are written helps scope the action. However, no sibling is named as an alternative (add_multiple_translations, copy_from_primary) and no prerequisites or exclusions are given, so usage is only implied.

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