Ai Translate Content

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. 'Using AI' faintly implies nondeterministic, network-dependent output, but there is no mention of permissions, rate limits, latency, or whether the source content is modified.

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 single sentence is short and front-loaded, but its brevity comes from under-specification rather than economy. Nothing meaningful is packed into it.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the description leaves the three input parameters entirely undocumented, gives no usage context, and no behavioral disclosure for a no-annotation tool. It is not sufficient for an agent to call this correctly without opening the schema.

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% for all three parameters (content, source_lang, target_lang), and the description adds no semantics whatsoever — not the accepted language code format, not the default behavior of source_lang, not whether target_lang is an ISO code or locale.

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 names a verb (translate) and a resource (content), so the basic action is inferable, but 'content' is vague and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like translation_add, interface_translation_add, or config_translation_add that also deal with translation.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: no indication of when AI translation is preferable to translation_add or interface_translation_add, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must guess from the name alone.

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