set_document_language

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

The description details the effect (writing to a specific XML location) but lacks explicit disclosure of side effects, error conditions, or prerequisites. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden, and it is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 extremely concise with three sentences plus Args/Returns. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is clear and well-organized.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no annotations, the description is complete: it explains what it does, how it works technically, what input to provide, and the return value. The absence of error handling details is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining the parameter is a BCP-47 language tag and providing concrete examples. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 tool sets the default document language with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like set_run_language by targeting the default paragraph style rather than a specific run.

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 implies use for setting the whole document's default language but does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives like set_run_language or when not to use it. The guidance is implicit, leaving room for confusion.

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