common-add-item-version

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real context by explaining the version is derived from an existing language version (implying field-copy semantics), but it omits behavioral details like what ifExist=OverwriteLatest does or that recurse touches children. Adequate but not rich.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for a 12-parameter tool and offers no structure to anchor the enum-based options.

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?

With 12 parameters, two undocumented enums (ifExist, ifNoSourceVersion), no output schema, and no required fields, the description is thin for the tool's complexity. The schema carries most of the load, but behavior around version overwrite/skip and recursive processing is left unaddressed.

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 83%, so the schema already documents id, path, full, fields, recurse, database, language, targetLanguage, and doNotCopyFields. The description only clarifies the source/target language relationship and leaves enums like ifExist and ifNoSourceVersion (which have no schema description) unexplained. Baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb (creates a version) and resource (item), plus the scoping qualifier 'in a new language based on an existing language version'. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling common-remove-item-version, but never names or contrasts an alternative explicitly.

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 the tool does but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. source language must have a version), and no alternatives such as authoring-update-item or item-service-edit-item. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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