Interface Translation Update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses important behavior: unknown source or missing translation in langcode produces a specific error, and the string is marked 'customized' to survive locale:import. It doesn't cover the return format, but the output schema likely handles that.

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?

Brief and front-loaded with the primary action, then details on errors and behavior. Every sentence earns its place. The multi-sentence structure is logical.

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?

For a 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no parameter descriptions, the description covers core behavior well but misses parameter semantics and confirmation of return behavior. It's adequate but with clear 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% and the description does not describe any of the four parameters (source, context, langcode, translation) individually. It implies semantics for source/langcode via the error conditions, but does not explain context or the format of translation. The gap is significant for a mutation tool.

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: 'Change an existing interface translation.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling interface_translation_add by describing the difference in behavior (this one refuses to invent anything).

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?

Explicitly names interface_translation_add as the alternative and clearly delineates when to use each: this tool requires an existing source string and translation, errors point at the add variant for new strings. The error semantics tell the agent exactly when to switch tools.

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