Bulk-create translation keys

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses return behavior: 'Returns lists of newly-created and already-existing keys,' which implies idempotent-like handling. However, it does not specify how already-existing keys are handled (ignored vs. overwritten), nor does it mention permissions or side effects. Some transparency, but significant gaps remain.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and no redundant information. Each clause contributes to understanding when and how to use the tool, and what to expect as output.

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 tool's moderate complexity (nested object param, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides core purpose, usage context, and return summary, but omits important behavioral details like conflict resolution for existing keys and the structure of the returned lists. It is minimally complete but leaves notable gaps.

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 coverage is 100% for both parameters, with detailed descriptions in the schema (key map, dot-namespaced, language default). The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, only reinforcing 'default values' and 'outside registered components' context. 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Create multiple translation keys with default values in one call.' It specifies the verb (create), resource (translation keys), and scope (multiple, bulk operation), effectively distinguishing itself from the sibling tools, which handle other entities like galleries or blog posts.

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 context on when to use the tool: 'Use this for keys you reference outside of registered components (nav labels, error strings, etc.)'. This implies a distinction from registered components, though it doesn't name an explicit alternative tool. Clear usage guidance, but no detailed exclusion or alternative tool reference.

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