Polylang Übersetzungen verknüpfen

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the high-level action without explaining whether existing translation links are overwritten, how the mapping is validated, or what response is returned. This leaves significant behavioral uncertainty for a mutation tool.

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 single concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action and purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Although the parameter is well-documented, the description lacks any behavioral side-effect information, and there is no output schema to clarify the return value. For a mutation tool with no annotations and many multilingual siblings, this leaves the context incomplete.

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 fully covers the single parameter 'translations' with a description of 'Objekt mit Sprach-Slug als Key und Post-ID als Value', so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level detail, so it does not exceed that baseline.

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 'Verknüpft Posts als Übersetzungen voneinander' clearly names the action (verknüpft) and resource (Posts), and specifies the purpose as creating translation links between posts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like polylang_set_post_language, which sets a single post's language, and wpml_create_translation, which creates a translation content item.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as requiring existing posts or language configuration, nor does it direct the agent to sibling tools like polylang_list_languages for language setup.

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