manage_ui5_i18n

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. It mentions a 'safe preview/apply patch flow', hinting at non-destructive previews and controlled application, but lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, error handling, or what 'fixes' entail (e.g., auto-generation of keys). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 8 parameters and mutation capabilities.

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 sized and front-loaded, packing key actions (extract, detect, apply) into a single sentence. Every phrase earns its place by outlining core functionality, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 (8 parameters, mutation capabilities) and no annotations, the description is incomplete—it lacks behavioral details and parameter explanations. However, the presence of an output schema mitigates the need to describe return values, keeping it minimally viable but with clear gaps for safe operation.

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 for all 8 parameters. It only vaguely references 'sourceDir' and 'i18nPath' through context (UI5 project files) and hints at 'mode' and 'dryRun' with 'report'/'fix' and 'preview', but fails to explain parameters like 'reason', 'maxDiffLines', 'keyPrefix', or 'maxFiles'. This insufficiently adds meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 with specific verbs ('extract UI literals', 'detect missing/unused i18n keys', 'apply fixes') and resources (UI5 i18n). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on i18n management, unlike other tools that analyze performance, generate code, or handle project structure.

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 implies usage through the mention of 'optional fixes with safe preview/apply patch flow', suggesting it can be used for reporting or fixing. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., other analysis tools) or prerequisites for use, leaving some context to inference.

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