localize_artboard

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention that the tool 'tests for layout truncation,' which is useful, but it does not clarify whether the translation mutates the artboard directly, whether changes are reversible, what happens when truncation is detected, or what output or side effects are produced.

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 description is a single sentence that front-loads the core action and follows with the key special behavior. Every phrase earns its place, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 tool with only three simple parameters, the description is reasonably complete, but the lack of annotations, output schema, and any mention of return behavior leaves meaningful gaps. An agent would not know what success or failure looks like, especially for the truncation test, which is central to the tool's purpose.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, including the enum values for targetLanguage. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond restating the language codes in prose, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific action ('Translates and localizes an artboard'), a precise set of target languages (de, ja, es, fr), and a distinctive additional behavior (testing for layout truncation). This clearly differentiates it from the many sibling design tools, such as set_text_content or generate_responsive_variants, which might otherwise overlap.

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?

Usage is implied rather than explicit: an agent can infer this tool should be used when an artboard needs translation/localization into one of the listed languages. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it, no mention of alternatives, and no stated prerequisites such as needing an open file or existing artboard.

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