grocy_system_log_missing_localization

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

Annotations already declare the write (readOnlyHint=false), non-idempotent and non-destructive profile, so the description's main added value is the dry-run behavior. That dry-run detail largely restates the confirm field's schema description, and nothing is said about write scope or side effects of logging beyond the confirm gate.

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?

Three short front-loaded sentences with the core action and dry-run behavior first. The endpoint path is arguably redundant given the tool name, but nothing is padded or buried.

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 two-parameter write with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description plus schema gives an agent enough to call it correctly. It would be stronger if it clarified what logging does (and whether repeated logs are meaningful given the non-idempotent hint), but nothing essential is missing.

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%; both text and confirm are fully documented in the schema including the strict const=true and rejection of string 'true'. The description's dry-run note adds no syntax or meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Log a missing localization string') plus the concrete endpoint, which pins down a diagnostic operation distinct from sibling grocy_system_localization. It does not explicitly contrast with that sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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 'Omit confirm for a dry-run' sentence tells the agent how to preview versus execute, which is real usage context. However it never says when an agent should log a missing localization string at all, nor does it point to any alternative tool or precondition.

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