add_translations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool does not overwrite existing translations, requires terms to already exist, and has a context-matching requirement. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or what happens with duplicate translations, leaving some gaps.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: the first states the purpose, the second provides usage guidelines, and the third adds a critical constraint. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it front-loaded and concise.

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 tool's complexity (3 parameters, nested objects in 'items', no output schema, and no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, usage rules, and a key constraint, but could improve by addressing error scenarios or output expectations, though the lack of output schema is a mitigating factor.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds some semantic context by explaining that 'context' must match if a term was created with one, but does not clarify other parameters like 'fuzzy', 'plural', or 'content'. The description partially compensates but leaves many parameters 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 tool's purpose: 'Add translations for EXISTING terms in a language (does not overwrite).' It specifies the verb ('add'), resource ('translations'), and scope ('existing terms'), and distinguishes it from sibling 'add_terms_with_translations' by noting it's only for existing terms.

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 vs. alternatives: 'Use this only when terms already exist. If you need to create new terms AND add their translations, prefer using add_terms_with_translations instead.' It also includes a prerequisite about context matching, making usage conditions clear.

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