fc_set_language

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the tool sets the output language, but does not disclose whether the change is persistent, applies globally or per-session, or requires any permissions. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient behavioral detail.

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 sentence with no superfluous information. It is front-loaded and efficient, earning its place without waste.

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 parameter, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. However, it lacks information on scope and persistence of the language setting. For a simple setter, this is adequate but not exemplary.

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 100% and the parameter 'language' has a description 'Language code' with enum values. The tool's description adds 'Set the output language' but does not elaborate on the meaning of each code or how it affects output. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already provides the necessary detail.

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 verb 'Set' and the resource 'output language for FileCommander tools'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are file operations, as this is a configuration tool. However, it could be more specific about what 'output language' entails (e.g., UI language or error messages).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites, typical use case, or that it should be called before other FileCommander tools. The description lacks any context for appropriate usage.

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