Set target languages

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

No annotations exist, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It discloses the scoping (account/app/IAP) and propagation of app-level changes, but does not mention whether changes are destructive (overwrite), reversible, or require specific permissions.

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?

Two concise sentences. The first states the core purpose and scoping, the second adds a key behavioral detail about propagation. No extraneous information.

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 3 parameters. The description, combined with schema, provides sufficient detail for correct invocation. No output schema exists, so return values are not expected. Minor gap: no mention of whether the operation succeeds or errors.

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 67% (targetLocales and productId have descriptions, appId lacks one). The description adds semantic context: it explains the hierarchical usage of appId and productId, the requirement that productId needs appId, and provides an example for targetLocales format.

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 identifies the action ('Set target translation locales') and the resource ('target languages'), specifying three hierarchical levels (account, app, IAP). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_target_languages' by describing the setting operation.

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 explains when to use each level (no appId for account, appId for app, appId+productId for IAP) and notes propagation behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or provide alternatives like 'get_target_languages' for read-only needs.

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