Translate Field Label

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and readOnly=false, covering mutation and idempotency. The description adds useful context about the Metadata API and the Translation Workbench prerequisite. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., deployment time, need for specific permissions) beyond what annotations imply, so it adds moderate value without contradicting the 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 long and front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence provides essential information: what it does, required inputs, optional input, and a prerequisite. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the operation, all required and optional inputs, and a key dependency. It does not describe the response format or error behavior, but these are less 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already documented. The description reinforces the meaning of each parameter (e.g., object API name, field API name, language code) and provides examples like 'fr', 'de', 'es'. It adds minimal additional semantics beyond the schema, earning a baseline 3.

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 field label (and optionally help text) on a Salesforce object via the Metadata API (CustomObjectTranslation type).' It provides a specific verb, resource, and API type, distinguishing it from related tools like sf_translate_custom_label and sf_create_custom_field.

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 clear context for usage by specifying the required inputs and the prerequisite that 'Translation Workbench must be enabled.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools for exclusion, but the sibling tool sf_translate_custom_label exists, and the focus on 'field label' implies the differentiation. A more explicit contrast would elevate this to a 5.

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