Add survey language

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the tool is not read-only. The description adds one behavioral detail: authentication uses a configured service account (no session key). However, it doesn't disclose side effects, error handling, or whether multiple additions are allowed. Given annotations already cover non-read-only nature, the description adds moderate value.

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 short sentences: the first immediately states the tool's core purpose, the second adds a critical authentication behavior. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff. The structure is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given that the tool has a simple operation (add a language) and an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about valid language codes, whether the tool overwrites existing translations, or how to handle errors. For a tool in a large suite with many similar operations, more context would improve 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 coverage is 100%, with all three parameters described in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline for high coverage is 3; no extra semantic value is contributed.

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 action 'Add a language to a survey' and references the underlying LimeSurvey method. It immediately distinguishes from sibling tools like 'limesurvey_get_survey_languages' (read) and 'limesurvey_delete_language' (delete) by specifying the add 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 only says 'Add a language to a survey,' without guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., survey existence, valid language codes) or exclusions. The use case is implied but not explicitly differentiated from other language-related tools.

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