Translate Media

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

Beyond the destructive/openWorld annotations, the description discloses real operational behavior: the required permission tier, the delegated-scope alternative, the mandatory confirm=true gate, and side effects (sharing access, notifying people, provider charges). It stops short of describing reversibility or whether translation is asynchronous/job-based.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in one line and the requirement block is header-structured, but the permission boilerplate is lengthy and largely templated across sibling tools, diluting the signal. It is organized but not tight.

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 destructive, no-output-schema mutation with 7 params and a nested payload, the definition covers auth, confirmation, and side effects well. Remaining gaps (reversibility of the translation, sync vs. async execution) are minor since output values need not be explained.

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 the schema already documents account, confirm, payload, source/target language, etc. The description adds no syntax, format, or default detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (translates) and resource (transcript for a media), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from adjacent localization/caption tools such as create_localization or update_captions, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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 concrete prerequisites (token permissions, delegate scope, confirm=true), which implies usage conditions, but it never says when to prefer this tool over create_localization or get_media_languages, nor when-not to use it. Guidance is present but indirect.

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