apply_translations

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the rollback tagging, the block format, and the behavior of the 'preserve_original' and 'delimiter' parameters. No contradictions.

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?

Description is relatively concise with two paragraphs. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, followed by format and parameter explanations. It could be more structured (e.g., using bullet points for parameters) but is still efficient.

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 has 5 parameters, 1 required, and has an output schema, the description covers the key behaviors like rollback tagging and original preservation. It doesn't explain the output format (but output schema exists) or multi-issue application explicitly, which is implied by the block format. Adequate for the complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'translations' block format, 'batch_tag' auto-generation, 'preserve_original' behavior, and 'delimiter' default. 'instance' is mentioned but minimally. Overall adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 applies translated text to YouTrack issues and tags for rollback. It specifies the verb 'apply' and the resource 'translated text to YouTrack issues', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_issues_for_translation' or 'update_issue'.

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 implies usage for applying translations but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_issue' or 'add_comment'. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance provided.

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