Delete survey language

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description reinforces this by requiring confirmation. It adds the backend method call and authentication note. No contradictions. It does not detail edge cases (e.g., removing base language), but given annotation coverage, this is acceptable.

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?

Three sentences with no fluff: purpose, requirement, and implementation/authentication. Each sentence earns its place. Well-structured and front-loaded.

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 destructive tool with clear annotations and output schema, the description covers purpose, requirements, authentication, and backend method. It does not describe error handling or edge cases, but these are low priority given the tool's simplicity and annotation support.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond schema, only reinforcing the confirm_destructive_action requirement already captured by the const true definition. No additional parameter details are provided.

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 (remove a non-base language), the resource (survey), and distinguishes from siblings like limesurvey_add_language and limesurvey_get_survey_languages. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly requires confirm_destructive_action=true and mentions authentication. It implies the tool is for non-base languages only, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using it or list alternatives, though the sibling set makes it clear.

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