add_language

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation, so the bar for additional disclosure is lower. The description adds two meaningful behavioral facts not in the annotations: it spends ElevenLabs credits and is deprecated upstream. It does not cover auth or return behavior, but cost and lifecycle warnings are valuable here.

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 definition is short and front-loads the action, cost, and deprecation note. However, the first sentence reads awkwardly ('resource spends ElevenLabs credits') and lacks punctuation, so structure is not fully clean.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and only 50% schema description coverage, the description omits what resource is being modified, the expected language format, and whether it duplicates dubbing_language_create. The cost/deprecation notes help, but key invocation details are missing.

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 50%; dubbing_id is documented, but language has no schema description and the description provides no format, allowed values, or null semantics for it. The phrase 'Add A Language' merely restates the parameter name and does not compensate for the undocumented language parameter.

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?

States a verb and action ('Add A Language') but the resource is vague ('the Resource'), and it does not distinguish itself from sibling tool dubbing_language_create. An agent cannot tell from the description alone which dubbing resource or endpoint this targets.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or alternative tool is named. The deprecation and credit-cost notes are useful caveats, but they do not tell the agent what to use instead or under what conditions this tool remains appropriate.

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