cc_set_language

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a configuration change (set language), which is non-destructive and persistent, and describes the effect on CodeCommander tools. However, it does not mention if the change is session-wide or permanent.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple configuration tool with one parameter.

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 the tool's simplicity (one param, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is mostly complete but lacks context on scope (global vs per-session) and persistence, which would help the agent understand the impact.

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 single parameter 'language' has an enum list and description in the schema, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no further detail about the parameter, but the schema sufficiently documents the allowed values. Baseline 3 applies, and I add 1 for the clear enum coverage.

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 tool sets the output language for CodeCommander tools, specifying the verb 'set' and the resource 'output language', which is distinct from sibling tools that analyze, clean, convert, or validate code.

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 implies when to use this tool (to change language settings) but does not provide guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives among siblings. No explicit usage context is provided.

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