update_translation_key_by_id

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

Annotations already show this is a mutating (readOnlyHint=false), non-idempotent, non-destructive operation, and the description aligns with that. It adds that fields are optional and updateable, but doesn't disclose whether omitted fields are preserved, validation behavior, or what the response contains.

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 sentences with a bulleted usage rule; purpose is front-loaded and no word is wasted. The example source of the ID is helpful.

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 9-parameter mutation tool, the description covers the action, all updatable fields, and when to call it. It lacks an explicit statement about the return value (there is no output schema) and doesn't name the alternative tool, but the core selection/call information is present.

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% and every parameter already has an explanatory description. The tool description merely repeats the parameter names as a list without adding semantics such as interactions or constraints, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('update'), a precise resource ('translation key ... by its ID'), and the scope ('metadata and/or key/namespace'). It differentiates from the sibling update_translation_key by specifying the ID-based addressing and pointing to get_all_translation_keys_v2 as the ID source.

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 gives a clear trigger condition: use when you already know the translation key's ID. It does not explicitly name the alternative for when you don't have an ID (e.g., update_translation_key), so it falls short of fully explicit when-not/alternative guidance.

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