delete_language

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is a deletion, implying it's destructive, but doesn't specify if it's reversible, requires specific permissions, affects survey functionality, or has side effects (e.g., removing associated data). 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 highly concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by a bullet-point list of parameters. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or verbose language, making it easy to scan and understand 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?

Given this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens upon deletion (e.g., success/failure responses, error conditions), behavioral constraints, or integration with sibling tools, leaving critical gaps for agent usage.

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 description includes an 'Args' section that documents both parameters ('sid' and 'language') with brief explanations, adding meaning beyond the input schema which has 0% description coverage. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't provide format details (e.g., language code standards).

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 ('Delete') and resource ('a language from a LimeSurvey survey'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'delete_survey' or 'delete_group' by specifying the language resource, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them in the text.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., whether the survey must be active), exclusions (e.g., cannot delete the last language), or comparisons to siblings like 'add_language' or 'set_language_properties'.

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