manage_translations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the actions without detailing side effects (e.g., whether adding overwrites existing, if removal is permanent) or any permissions needed.

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 description is a single concise phrase that efficiently covers the tool's operations. It is front-loaded with the action list, though it could be improved with a full sentence or bullet points for clarity.

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?

Given the 3 parameters, required fields, and no output schema, the description adequately summarizes the tool's function but does not mention return values or behavior upon success/failure. It is moderately complete for a management tool.

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 parameters are already well-documented structurally. The description adds a high-level summary but does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema already says (e.g., no format constraints or examples). 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('manage') and resource ('translation files'), and lists the supported actions (list, add, remove). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like manage_resource or manage_theme_resource by focusing on translation files.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., manage_resource, read_file). There is no mention of prerequisites or conditions for using list/add/remove, nor any exclusions.

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