add_terms_with_translations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that the tool 'ensures terms and translations are properly linked,' which adds useful behavioral context about atomicity and data integrity. However, it doesn't disclose other important traits like error handling, permissions required, rate limits, or what happens on failure, leaving gaps for a mutation 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?

The description is front-loaded with the key purpose and usage guidelines in the first sentence. Every sentence adds value: the first states what it does, the second gives explicit alternatives, and the third provides additional context. There is no wasted text, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given the complexity (3 parameters with nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It excels in purpose and guidelines but lacks parameter explanations and behavioral details like error handling or return values. For a mutation tool with significant parameter complexity, more information is needed to be fully helpful.

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 0%, meaning none of the parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not explain any parameters—it doesn't mention 'project_id', 'language', or the structure of 'items' (including 'term', 'context', 'reference', 'tags', or 'translation' fields). This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving parameters largely unexplained.

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 specific action: 'Create multiple new terms and add their translations in one operation.' It explicitly distinguishes this tool from its siblings by naming 'add_terms' and 'add_translations' as separate tools that should not be used, making the purpose highly specific and differentiated.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'PREFERRED METHOD' indicates it's the recommended approach, and it specifies 'Use this instead of calling add_terms followed by add_translations separately.' It also mentions a specific scenario where it's important: 'especially important when using context,' giving clear context for its use over alternatives.

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