import_translations

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

Annotations already signal a non-read-only, non-idempotent operation, and the description does not contradict that. It adds limited behavioral context through the importOptions examples like PUBLISH_AFTER_IMPORT and REPLACE_TRANSLATION_IF_FOUND, but it does not explain default behavior, side effects, or what happens to existing translations.

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, with the main purpose in the first sentence and required/optional parameters clearly grouped. Every sentence contributes useful information without filler or redundant phrasing.

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 7-parameter import operation with no output schema, the description adequately covers the input contract and names optional parameters. However, it does not describe the return shape, default publishing/replacement behavior, or other operational outcomes, leaving some ambiguity for an agent deciding whether the call succeeded.

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 schema already describes all parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats required/optional groupings and adds format examples, which is helpful but does not meaningfully go beyond what the schema provides.

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 opening sentence names the action ('import'), the object ('translations'), and the target ('SimpleLocalize project'), making the purpose explicit. It also clarifies the input is a local file, which differentiates it from export, manual updates, and other translation-related siblings.

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 clearly states that filePath and uploadFormat are required and lists the optional parameters, so an agent knows the minimal call shape. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over alternatives like export_translations or update_translations_bulk, nor provide when-not-to-use conditions.

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