Interface Translation Delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key behavioral fact: it drops the row from `locales_target` while the source string survives because other languages still use it. That clarifies exactly what is and is not destroyed. It stops short of stating permission/auth requirements or whether the deletion is reversible, which keeps it from a 5.

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 first sentence is front-loaded and useful, but the trailing sentence about the missing drush command and .po re-import is editorial context that does not help an agent invoke the tool. Reasonably sized overall, with some sentences not earning their place.

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 described, and the description does cover the delete semantics. But for a 3-parameter, zero-coverage, annotation-free mutation tool, the absence of parameter meaning and permission/reversibility notes leaves real 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 description coverage is 0% across three parameters, so the description must compensate, but it only loosely gestures at 'this source and language' without defining accepted formats for `source` or `langcode`. The `context` parameter is never mentioned at all, leaving a third of the inputs undocumented.

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 and resource ('Remove an interface translation from one language') and scopes it to a single language. It is easily distinguished from siblings like interface_translation_add/update/list, which operate on the same object with different intent.

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 explains the effect and notes that no `locale:translate:delete` drush command exists and that re-importing a .po file is no longer the only route, which gives some context for reaching for this tool. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over interface_translation_update (e.g., clearing a translation) or how it relates to translation_delete for content entities.

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