delete_translations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is destructive ('Delete') and advises caution, but lacks details on permissions required, whether deletions are reversible, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if items are missing. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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 two concise sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, and the second adds a crucial caution. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 destructive nature, 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral traits like side effects or auth needs, and expected outcomes. While concise, it doesn't provide enough context for safe and effective use by an agent.

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 mentions 'specific terms in a language,' which hints at the 'language' and 'items' parameters, but doesn't explain 'project_id' (implied by 'translations' context) or the structure of 'items' (objects with 'term' and optional 'context'). The description adds minimal meaning beyond the bare schema, failing to fully address the coverage gap.

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 ('Delete translations') and target ('for specific terms in a language'), which distinguishes it from siblings like delete_terms (which deletes terms rather than translations) and update_translations (which modifies rather than removes). However, it doesn't specify the resource scope (e.g., within a project) that the schema indicates via project_id, making it slightly less specific than ideal.

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 implied guidance with 'Only remove translations you are certain are obsolete,' suggesting caution for this destructive operation. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete_terms or update_translations, nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing a project_id from project_details. This leaves some ambiguity in context.

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