Translation Add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not state whether this creates or overwrites a translation, what permissions are needed, whether the target entity must already have translation enabled (content_translation_enable), or what happens on conflict. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is severely deficient.

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?

It is a single short sentence, which is concise, but that conciseness stems from under-specification rather than precision. There is no structure or front-loading of important constraints because none are present.

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?

A mutation tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and a vast set of translation siblings requires far more context than this. Even though an output schema exists, the description does not explain the operation's semantics, prerequisites, or relationship to related tools, making it inadequate 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% across 4 parameters (entity_type, entity_id, langcode, fields). The description does not mention any parameter, their formats, or allowed values (e.g., langcode conventions, whether fields supports nested/field keys). It fails to compensate for the coverage gap entirely.

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 "Add translation for an entity" restates the tool name (translation_add) almost verbatim with a tautological phrase. It gives a vague verb+resource but does not clarify what kind of translation (content vs. interface) or how it relates to siblings like content_translation_enable or interface_translation_add. Minimal distinguishing information.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as interface_translation_add, content_translation_enable, or translation_update. The sibling set is crowded with translation-related tools, yet the description offers no routing or prerequisites.

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