Config Translation Add

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it explains that a config translation is stored as a per-language config override resolved through the config translation mapper, which tells the agent what is actually written. It omits permissions needed and whether an existing translation is overwritten, but the non-obvious storage semantics are disclosed.

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 purpose and parameter formats are front-loaded, but the middle rambles into editorial narrative about the tool having 'tried, twice, both failing every time' and listing nonexistent APIs/commands. Those sentences do not help an agent select or invoke the tool and pad a definition that could be half the length.

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 no explanation, and the conceptual override model is covered well. However, for a mutation tool with zero annotations, the description leaves auth requirements and overwrite/merge behavior unaddressed, which is a real gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: config_name is given a concrete {entity_type}/{entity_id} format with an example, and translation is defined as a flat map of property to translated value. Only langcode is left undocumented, but it is largely self-evident.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Translate a config entity') and gives the concrete config_name format with an example, so it is distinguishable from the other translation_add siblings. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from translation_add/interface_translation_add, but the config-entity scope is clear.

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?

It points at config_translation_list as the way to discover which entity types are translatable, which is useful routing, but it never states when to use this tool versus the content or interface translation tools. Usage is implied rather than explicit, with no when-not guidance.

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