add_culture

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the purpose and outcome but does not mention side effects, error behavior, idempotency, or required permissions. No information on what happens if the culture already exists or how the addition is stored. This is a significant gap 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and workflow. No redundant filler or restatement of the name.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives a solid high-level understanding of the tool's effect and how it fits into the translation workflow. However, it lacks important operational context such as what the response/return value is, whether the operation is reversible, or what happens on duplicate cultures. The description is adequate but not complete.

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 only 50% (locale is described, sessionId is not). The description repeats the locale examples from the schema ('fr-FR or mi-NZ') and adds 'mi-NZ' as an example, but it does not explain sessionId or any additional parameter semantics. The description adds marginal value beyond the schema and fails to compensate for the missing sessionId documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Add') with a clear resource ('a culture') and explains its purpose (enabling translated captions, descriptions, and display folders). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like delete_culture and set_translation by describing its role in the localization workflow.

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 names set_translation as the tool for adding actual translations, providing clear guidance on when to use this tool versus an alternative. It implies a sequencing step ('Add a culture... Add the actual translations with set_translation'), which is actionable context.

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