sb_translate

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive mutating tool. The description adds useful constraints (writes limited to 'registry fields only', 'machine-fill missing'), but omits the dry_run parameter entirely and says nothing about side effects or reversibility for the write/auto actions.

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?

A single dense pipe-delimited line that is front-loaded with the domain and then enumerates actions. It is compact, but 'as the editor does it' is cryptic filler and the run-on structure trades readability for brevity.

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?

With 12 parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the definition is too thin for the tool's complexity. Critically, the dry_run safety flag is never mentioned, and there is no explanation of what write/auto actions return or how they modify content.

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 12 parameters, so the description must compensate. It partially does: 'add/remove' maps to the locales params, 'node id+field+value' maps to the entries fields, and 'machine-fill' maps to source=machine. But most parameters (dry_run, offset, locale, site_id, page_id, entity_type, all, from) remain undocumented anywhere.

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 lead 'Multilingual, as the editor does it' is vague about the resource and verb, but the following pipe-delimited action list (status, locales, page, write, auto, review) reveals that this is a multilingual translation-management tool. An agent can infer the domain but must decode the terse sub-command markers to understand what the tool actually does.

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 parentheticals act as light usage notes ('write (node id+field+value; registry fields only)', 'auto (machine-fill missing)', 'review (approve)'), implying when each action applies. However, no alternative tools are named and there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings like sb_review or sb_set.

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