apply_translations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it explains that a batch tag enables rollback, describes how preserve_original modifies the issue content (appends original below a delimiter), and notes that the summary is still replaced. No contradiction with annotations.

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 moderately sized but every sentence contributes useful information, including the block format and parameter explanations. The critical purpose is front-loaded. Slight redundancy in the preserve_original explanation could be tightened, but overall it is well-structured.

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 complexity (5 params, no schema coverage), the description provides a complete picture: it explains the input format, rollback mechanism, bilingual behavior, delimiter, and optional instance. An output schema exists, so return values need no description. The context is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 fully compensates. It explains the format of the translations parameter, clarifies batch_tag is auto-generated if empty, describes the preserve_original behavior in detail, gives the delimiter default, and marks instance as optional. Every parameter is given meaningful semantic context beyond the raw 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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Apply translated text to YouTrack issues.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_issues_for_translation or update_issue by targeting the translation application action. The format specification further reinforces the specific scope.

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 and mentions rollback tagging, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_issue or bulk_update_execute. It lacks explicit exclusions or conditions that would help an agent decide between this and similar write operations.

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