ControlCenter Sprache setzen

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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description is consistent. It adds the key behavioral fact that the setting is scoped to the current instance, implying non-persistence. This goes beyond the annotations.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action, no redundant language. Every word earns its place.

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 setter with one parameter and strong annotations, the description is complete. It conveys the action, the scope, and the effect without needing to explain output (no output schema).

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 input schema already has 100% coverage with the parameter description 'Sprachcode für die ControlCenter-Ausgaben.' The tool description adds no additional parameter details, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Setzt die ControlCenter-Ausgabesprache' identifies exactly the action (set output language) and target. The scope 'für diese laufende MCP-Serverinstanz' adds specificity. It is distinct from the sibling getter controlcenter_get_language.

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 gives clear context: the change applies to the current running MCP server instance. It does not explicitly mention alternatives (like the getter tool), but the setter/getter distinction is obvious from the name. No exclusions are stated.

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