create_translation_key

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations by disclosing that it throws an error on duplicate keys, which is critical for anticipating failure. It doesn't contradict 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 compact and front-loaded: first sentence states the action; second sentence lists parameters; third sentence covers error behavior and the alternative tool. Every sentence carries distinct, useful information with no redundancy.

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 6-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational detail: required params, optional params, and the duplicate-key failure mode. It doesn't explain the success return value, but the absence of an output schema makes that less critical. Overall the agent has enough context to invoke it correctly.

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 has 100% description coverage and describes all parameters thoroughly, so the baseline is 3. The description merely lists the optional parameters without adding new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. It does reinforce that 'key' is required, but that is present in the 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 begins with a specific active verb ('create') and identifies both the object ('translation key') and the scope ('single ... in your SimpleLocalize project'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the bulk sibling by saying 'single,' so an agent can immediately tell this tool apart from create_translation_key_bulk.

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 gives direct routing guidance: use this tool when creating a single key, and explicitly names create_translation_key_bulk as the alternative for creating multiple keys or ignoring existing ones. It also communicates a key condition (throws error if key exists) that helps the agent decide when this tool is inappropriate.

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