update_form_translation

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

Annotations provide no behavioral guidance (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description carries the burden. It discloses partial-update behavior, the independence of the per-version `isActive`, and a validation constraint ('must not introduce codes that do not exist on the source form'). It does not mention deeper consequences like error behavior or what happens with unknown systemText keys, but those are covered in the schema, so the description adds solid context beyond 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?

The description is a single four-sentence paragraph that front-loads the purpose and then states the key behaviors and constraints. Every sentence is useful and no filler is present. It could benefit from bulleted structure given the complexity, but it is appropriately compact relative to the large schema.

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 tool with 9 parameters, nested objects, and an output schema, the description covers the essential usage context: what to pass, the partial-update workflow, and the `isActive` semantics. It does not explicitly mention that this tool requires an existing translation (or how to route to `create_form_translation`), but the name and 'keep their current value' strongly imply it. Overall it is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 the schema fully documents each parameter, including nested match-key semantics. The description adds only a high-level cross-reference to `get_form_translation` and restates the code-match constraint already present in the schema. It does not meaningfully explain individual parameters beyond what the schema provides, so the 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?

The description states a clear verb and resource: 'Save translated copy for one language version of a form.' It explicitly distinguishes the action from reading (`get_form_translation`) by referencing the shape to mirror, and 'fields you omit keep their current value' signals an update rather than a create. No ambiguity remains about what the tool does.

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 clear context: mirror the shape from `get_form_translation`, partial translation is allowed, and `isActive` can be toggled per language version. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., 'use create_form_translation for new language versions') or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5. The intended workflow is nonetheless easy to infer.

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