Translate Custom Label

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

The description discloses key behaviors beyond annotations: it notes that 'Existing translations for the same label and language will be overwritten,' which aligns with the idempotentHint, and mentions the prerequisite. This adds context without contradicting annotations.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no redundant or irrelevant information. It is concise 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?

For a simple 3-parameter upsert tool with annotations, the description covers purpose, operation, prerequisites, and side effects (overwrite behavior). It does not explain failure cases or return values, but those are not critical given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters, including examples. The description repeats some of this information (e.g., language codes) but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 function: 'Adds or updates a translation for a Salesforce Custom Label via the Metadata API (Translations type).' This uses specific verbs and identifies the resource (Custom Label), distinguishing it from sibling tools like sf_create_custom_label and sf_translate_field_label.

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 by stating the operation and prerequisites (Translation Workbench must be enabled), but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives (e.g., sf_translate_field_label) or state when not to use this tool. Guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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