delete_form_translation

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

Beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation, the description discloses important non-obvious consequences: submission records are NOT deleted, reports for historical records fall back to source text, and the primary language is not removable through this operation. This is precisely the behavioral context an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool.

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, each earning its place: the first states the action, the second explains data-retention implications, and the third states the primary-language exclusion. The essential scoping is front-loaded, with no redundancy or extraneous detail.

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 destructive operation with an output schema and annotations already present, the description covers all the necessary context: what is deleted, what is preserved, fallback behavior for reports, and a hard constraint on the primary language. No critical operational information is missing.

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 100%, so both formId and language are already documented in the schema. The description's phrase 'language version (translation)' reinforces the meaning of the language parameter and clarifies that formId refers to the source form, but it does not add substantial parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 names the exact verb and resource: 'Delete one language version (translation) of a form.' It clearly distinguishes this from delete_form by specifying the object is a translation/language version, and it adds the critical constraint that the primary language cannot be deleted.

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 makes the tool's scope clear: deleting a language version is the intended use, and deleting the primary language is explicitly excluded. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool like delete_form for that case, so it stops short of perfectly explicit routing, but the usage context is otherwise unambiguous.

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