translate_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It is exceptionally transparent: it details OCR detection before submission, the meaning of code=202 (not charged), the data fields submitted/charged/detecting, the is_ocr override behavior and its side effects, the OCR quota implications, and that non-200 errors come from the translation service rather than upload. This goes far beyond a basic description.

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?

Although long, every sentence carries meaningful, non-redundant operational information. Important warnings are bolded (code=202, no charge), and the narrative is front-loaded with the primary purpose. The density corresponds directly to the complexity of the tool, and there is no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return fields and side effects, and it does: orders[].translateOrderNo, msg, ocrDetection, data.submitted/charged/detecting. It also handles edge cases (202 retry, service-busy 600, is_ocr override) and prerequisite steps. For a tool with this complexity, the description is remarkably complete.

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% and the schema itself already provides detailed parameter descriptions. The tool description adds valuable operational context for parameters, especially is_ocr (when not to set it, what it means, and the warning about incorrect usage) and file_list (PDF scanning auto-detection). It slightly overlaps with schema content but enhances it with real usage guidance.

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 '提交文档翻译任务' (submit a document translation task), names the supported formats, and explicitly distinguishes this from other siblings such as translate_video and wait_for_translation. It also explains that images go through this same tool, eliminating ambiguity about which tool to use for a given input type.

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?

Provides explicit workflow: first call get_model_list and get_supported_languages, then let the user choose model and target language. It states exactly when to use this tool vs alternatives, including using the returned translateOrderNo to call wait_for_translation directly instead of re-querying lists, and that images do not require a separate interface. It also gives specific retry instructions for code=202 and non-200 responses.

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