update_translation_key

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

Annotations already communicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructiveness (destructiveHint=false). The description adds useful context by specifying partial-update semantics (only provided optional fields are updated) and which fields can be changed. Still, it does not clarify behavior on missing keys, reversibility, or lock/deprecation effects, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 compact, uses bullets for readability, and leads with the core action. It is not tautological or padded. Minor redundancy exists between the opening scope statement and the closing use-case list, but overall it is efficient.

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?

Given the full parameter schema and annotations, the description provides enough context to call the tool correctly: target identification, updatable fields, and intended use cases. There is no output schema, but this is acceptable for an update tool whose response shape is likely peripheral to the call.

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?

The input schema fully describes all 10 parameters (100% coverage), so the description does not need to compensate. It adds some value by separating identification fields (key/namespace) from update fields (newKey, newNamespace, etc.), but this is largely a re-grouping of schema information rather than new semantic depth.

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: updating a translation key's metadata and/or key/namespace. It also names concrete use cases (rename keys, move keys between namespaces, update metadata). It does not explicitly call out the sibling update_translation_key_by_id, but the emphasis on identifying the key by 'key' and 'namespace' implies the distinction from an ID-based update.

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 clear when-to-use guidance: rename keys, move keys between namespaces, or update key metadata. It does not mention exclusions or explicitly route to alternatives such as bulk updates or update by ID, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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