set_translations

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only says 'set translation values', which implies mutation. It fails to disclose whether it overwrites or merges translations, error behavior for missing keys, idempotency, authorization needs, or rate limits.

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 concise with a two-sentence overview plus an args list. It is front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence adds value, though the args section could be more structured.

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?

Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description omits return value details, error conditions, and behavioral traits (merge vs overwrite). For a mutation tool, more context is needed to be fully self-contained.

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 coverage is 0% (no description in schema), so the description must compensate. It provides brief yet clear explanations for all three parameters, including an example for 'translations'. However, it lacks constraints like key existence validation or format specifics.

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 ('Set translation values') and target ('existing key in a Tolgee project'), using a specific verb+resource pattern. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_key' or 'create_or_update_translations', but does not explicitly differentiate from the latter.

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 description only states the basic context ('existing key') but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_or_update_translations', nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use it.

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