wafle_ai_translate

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

The annotation idempotentHint=true is complemented by specific caching details: 'Cached by sha256(source_text|source_lang|target_lang) — re-translating the same input is free.' The description also discloses preservation of markdown, lists, links, and {{placeholders}}, going beyond the generic idempotency hint. No return format is given, but this is not a major gap for a simple translation tool.

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 dense, front-loaded sentences: purpose+caching, capabilities+use cases, and language code format. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant restating of schema or annotations.

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 4-required-param tool with no output schema and only idempotentHint, the description covers use cases, caching behavior, formatting preservation, and language code formats. It lacks explicit response format or error handling, but the overall context is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (slug, text, source_lang, target_lang) already described in the schema. The description adds language code examples and context about text preservation, but these are broad behavioral notes rather than deeper parameter-level semantics. 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Translate a piece of text from one language to another.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling AI tools like wafle_ai_categorize or wafle_ai_product_describe. It also narrows scope to text snippets, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use for product descriptions, emails, or short copy snippets.' This provides clear context. It does not name alternatives explicitly, but the 'short copy snippets' phrase implies a boundary against longer documents, though no excluded alternatives are named.

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