write_translation

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

There are no annotations, and the description provides minimal behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state that the file will be overwritten or truncated, nor does it mention any side effects or return behavior. The path schema mentions 'write/overwrite,' but the description itself lacks this transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the core action.

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 write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not cover overwrite behavior, expected CSV format, relationship to existing translation files, or usage context. The agent would need to rely on schema and tool name to infer basic operation.

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?

All three parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema — 'keys + entries' approximately describes the entries map but offers no additional semantics for path or language.

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 clearly states the action (write) and the resource (full translation CSV). The word 'full' differentiates it from incremental operations like add_translation_key, making the tool's scope evident.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that add_translation_key is for incremental additions or that create_translation handles resource creation, leaving the agent without usage context.

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