Create Localization

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses billing behavior (free-dub allowance then per-minute charges), the exact permission scopes accepted, delegated-token authorization semantics, and the confirm=true guard. This is rich operational context an agent would not otherwise have.

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 core action and the cost warning are front-loaded before the permission boilerplate, and markdown headers keep the sections scannable. The permission-scope block is somewhat verbose for a tool description, but each part carries real information.

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 charge-incurring mutation with nested request bodies and no output schema, the description covers the critical unknowns: cost, authorization, and the confirm guard. It omits anything about return values or invalid-language handling, but those gaps are minor given the tool's complexity is otherwise addressed.

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 all seven parameters are already documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds only marginal parameter meaning by calling out confirm=true and referencing charges, but says nothing about the required media_hashed_id, output_language format, or the payload/payload_file mutual exclusion that the schema already covers.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Creates a new localization'), so the core action is unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate itself from related siblings (e.g. translate_media, create_captions, or the list/get/delete_localization set), leaving the agent to infer the distinction from the name alone.

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?

Provides precondition context (confirm=true required, cost implications, permission scopes) that shapes when the tool is appropriate. But it names no alternatives and gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance relative to translate_media or the other localization tools, so usage is only implied.

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