create_auto_translation_jobs

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

Discloses async behavior, that results are saved directly to the project, and that the configuration is fixed from a prior Web App job. This adds meaningful context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, etc.) without contradicting them. It also tells the agent how to monitor progress.

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 concise, with a clear main statement followed by three bullet points that add necessary details. It front-loads the purpose and avoids redundant phrasing. No wasted words.

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 an asynchronous job tool with 2 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what starts, how to influence it, what limitations exist, and how to track results. It is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly, though it could mention potential side effects like cost or rate limits.

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%, with both parameters already described in the schema. The description adds only minor clarification (e.g., the languageKeys fallback) but does not significantly extend beyond the schema. Baseline is 3 given high schema coverage.

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 ('start asynchronous auto-translation jobs'), the resource (project languages), and that results are saved directly. It is specific enough to be understood, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool auto_translate_text (which likely handles synchronous single-text translation), so it misses some differentiation.

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?

Provides clear usage context: mentions optional languageKeys with fallback behavior, and notes that the provider/configuration comes from the last Web App job and cannot be customized. It also directs to related get_* tools for progress tracking. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over auto_translate_text or other translation tools.

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