add_language

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool adds a language but doesn't mention whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if the language already exists, whether the change is reversible, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences: one stating the purpose and another listing parameters. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. While efficient, the parameter section could be more structured (e.g., bullet points) for slightly better readability.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers basic purpose and parameters but lacks crucial context: behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, idempotency), error conditions, and what the tool returns. Given the complexity and missing structured data, more detail is needed.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description lists the two parameters (sid and language) and briefly explains their purpose ('survey ID' and 'language code'), adding some semantic value beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't specify format details (e.g., language code standards like 'en' or 'fr-FR') or validation rules, leaving gaps.

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') and target resource ('to a LimeSurvey survey'), providing specific verb+resource pairing. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_language' or 'set_language_properties', which would require explicit comparison to achieve a score of 5.

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 like 'delete_language' or 'set_language_properties'. It mentions the survey ID and language code as parameters but offers no context about prerequisites, constraints, or appropriate scenarios for language addition.

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