update_translation

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

Annotations already signal a non-read-only mutating operation, so the description's job is lighter. It adds concrete failure behavior: it throws if the translation key, language key, or customerId does not exist, which clarifies that this tool does not auto-create missing entities. This is useful context beyond 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 well-structured: operation first, then required/optional parameters, then failure behavior, then the alternative for bulk updates. Every sentence earns its place and there is no 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 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, which inputs are required, the error conditions to expect, and when to use a sibling tool instead. Nothing essential for selecting or invoking the tool 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping required and optional parameters in one place and by noting that namespace participates in translation-key identity, which is not explicitly stated in the schema. It also connects customerId to the existence-check behavior.

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 states a specific verb+resource pair: 'update a single translation in your SimpleLocalize project.' It explicitly contrasts with update_translations_bulk by emphasizing 'single,' making the tool's scope and differentiation from siblings clear.

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?

It explains when to use this tool by naming the alternative for mass updates: 'Use update_translations_bulk for efficient mass updates instead.' It also lists required vs optional inputs and tells the agent what errors occur if referenced keys, languages, or customer IDs do not exist, which is actionable guidance.

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