update_translations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions that translations are 'update/overwrite' (implying mutation) and provides one important constraint about context matching, it lacks critical information about permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens to existing translations not included in the update. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 appropriately brief with two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides a critical constraint. There's no unnecessary verbiage, though it could be more structured by separating usage guidance from behavioral constraints.

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 mutation tool with 3 parameters (including a complex nested array structure), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It provides one important behavioral constraint but misses essential context about permissions, error handling, return values, and how this tool differs from similar sibling tools. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional information.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 3 parameters, the description provides minimal parameter guidance. It only mentions the 'context' parameter indirectly in the constraint about matching context values, but doesn't explain what 'project_id', 'language', or the complex 'items' array structure represent. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.

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 ('update/overwrite translations') and the target resource ('for a language'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'add_translations' or 'update_terms', which appear to have related functionality.

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 a specific constraint about matching context values for terms created with context, but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_translations' or 'update_terms'. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or when this tool would be preferred over other translation-related tools.

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