set_run_language

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

No annotations provided; description does not disclose side effects (e.g., overwriting existing language), error conditions, or validation of language code. Minimal insight beyond basic action.

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?

Concise docstring format with clear Args section. No unnecessary text, but could be slightly more structured with a note on return value.

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?

Even with an output schema (not provided), description omits return behavior, error handling, and any post-conditions. For a mutation tool with 3 required params, it lacks completeness.

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 has 0% description coverage; description adds some meaning (para_id for target paragraph, run_idx zero-based, BCP-47 codes) but lacks detail on where to find these values or what constitutes invalid input.

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?

Description clearly states the action (set language on a run) and its purpose (spell-checking). It distinguishes from sibling tools like set_document_language and other run formatting setters.

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 guidance on when to use vs alternatives (e.g., set_document_language). The purpose implies the scope, but lacks clear when-not-to-use or prerequisites.

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