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

Annotations include destructiveHint=true, and the description aligns with that by indicating a mutating operation. It adds the behavior that jobs can override the site language, which is useful. However, it does not mention that the operation may affect already-published jobs or whether changes are reversible, and there is no auth information. Given the destructive annotation, more disclosure about consequences would be valuable.

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 is front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds the crucial caveat about job overrides. Every word carries meaning; no fluff. This is exemplary conciseness.

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?

The tool is simple with only 2 optional parametersaire, and the schema covers them fully. With destructiveHint=true, the description could mention that the change affects all job/company pages, but it already does. An output schema does not exist, so no need to explain return values. The description is sufficient for correct invocation in most cases.

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 100% and the schema already provides detailed descriptions for both parameters, including examples and the 'omit to keep, null to reset' clause. The description adds minimal additional meaning because it explains the effect of the language parameter (site-wide language). Since coverage is high, baseline is 3; the description's clarification about scope raises it slightly to 4.

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 that the tool sets the public career site language diagnostic: it names the specific resource (career site settings) and the specific action (set the language), and it explains that job and company pages follow the site language unless a job overrides it. This distinguishes it from the sibling get_career_site_settings and from the many other 'update' tools.

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 says what language is set and that jobs can override it, implying when the tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name the sibling get_career_site_settings or say 'use this when you need to update language, not read it', but the context is clear. It lacks exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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