Create Localization

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

Annotations already mark this destructive, non-idempotent and open-world, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds substantive context: the free-dub allowance and per-minute billing model, the exact token scope required, and the delegated-permission path. It stops short of describing whether the dub is processed asynchronously and how completion is tracked.

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?

Front-loads the action sentence, then layers cost and authorization details in short paragraphs. The permission-scope block is boilerplate but consequential, and nothing is redundant enough to be cut.

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 charged, confirm-gated mutation with a nested payload and no output schema, the description covers cost and auth well but says nothing about the outcome the agent should expect (returned localization object, processing time, or whether get_job_status is needed). Adequate but with a noticeable gap.

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%, so every parameter (media_hashed_id, output_language, auto_enable, payload, payload_file, account, confirm) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, default, or mutual-exclusion detail beyond what structured fields provide, which is the baseline for this case.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Creates a new localization"), which is unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as translate_media, get_localization or list_localizations, so the agent must infer which localization-related tool applies.

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 supplies real prerequisites (required permission scope, confirm=true, billing implications) but never states when to reach for this tool instead of translate_media or the other media-mutation siblings. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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