delete_translation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the destructive breadth ('from all locale files'), which is genuinely useful. However, it omits whether the removal is reversible, whether a missing key errors or is silently ignored, and any permission or confirmation requirements expected of a delete operation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the destructive scope is stated immediately rather than buried.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core action and its blast radius but leaves the namespace parameter, failure behavior, and reversibility unaddressed.

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 50%: 'key' is documented as a dot-notation path, but 'namespace' is undocumented in both schema and description, leaving the agent to infer its meaning. The description echoes both parameter names without adding format or constraint details beyond the schema.

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 states a precise verb ('Remove') and resource ('a translation key') plus a distinguishing scope ('from all locale files in a namespace'), which separates it from get_translation, add_translation, and the read-only siblings. It stops short of naming an alternative, but the destructive cross-locale scope makes the tool's identity unmistakable.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus add_translation or the integrity/quality check tools, and no prerequisites or cautions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the verb.

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