manage_language_targets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing side effects, permissions, or mutation semantics. 'Manage' gives no indication of what happens to existing language targets, whether the operation is additive or destructive, or what the response looks like.

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 a short fragment, but underspecification is not conciseness. It lacks a complete sentence and omits crucial details. While it is brief, it does not effectively use that brevity to convey meaningful 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?

For a tool that likely mutates campaign settings, the description is completely inadequate. There is no output schema, no annotations, and no mention of return values, side effects, or operational context. The description leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool correctly.

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?

The schema covers two of three parameters with descriptions, leaving 'languageCodes' undocumented. The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema and fails to clarify how languageCodes are interpreted (e.g., replace vs. append). With moderate schema coverage and no compensatory explanation, the description provides minimal semantic value.

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 provides a verb ('Manage') and a resource ('language targeting'), but 'manage' is vague and does not specify the specific operation (add, remove, replace, list). It distinguishes the general area from sibling tools but lacks the precision needed for an agent to know what action will be performed.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context about typical scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description only implies that it relates to language targeting, but does not state when an agent should invoke it.

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