create_form_translation

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

Annotations are minimal (readOnly=false, destructive=false), so the description carries behavioral context. It discloses the cloning behavior, that the return value is the draft to edit, the language constraint, and the at-most-one-per-language rule. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the core action, the workflow and next step, and the constraints. The most important information is front-loaded, and there is no padding 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?

The description covers the creation workflow, the return behavior, the uniqueness constraint, and points to the relevant sibling tool. With an output schema and fully documented parameters, this is nearly complete; the only minor gap is explicit error behavior for duplicate or same-primary-language attempts.

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?

The schema already documents both parameters at 100% coverage, including the language constraint. The description restates the language constraint without adding new parameter-level detail, so it neither adds nor detracts beyond the baseline.

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 ('Add a language version (translation) to a form') and the resource (a form translation). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like update_form_translation and delete_form_translation by describing the creation-specific clone-and-return behavior.

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 gives a concrete workflow: create, edit the draft, then save with update_form_translation, and it points to list_form_translations for the one-per-language constraint. It does not explicitly state 'use update_form_translation if a translation already exists,' but the workflow and uniqueness constraint imply this context.

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