add_store_language

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool's non-translation behavior but omits details like whether existing languages are duplicated, prerequisites (project existence), or side effects. The safety profile is implied but not explicit.

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 that front-loads the purpose and adds critical workflow context without unnecessary words. 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?

Given the simple parameter set and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and workflow adequately. Lacks information on return values or error conditions, but for a straightforward add tool, it is sufficiently complete.

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 67% (2/3 parameters have descriptions). The description adds a usage example ('de_DE for German') that reinforces languageCode meaning, but does not explain projectId. Baseline is 3 due to moderate coverage; description adds marginal value.

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 explicitly states the action ('Add'), the resource ('store languages to a project'), provides an example code, and distinguishes from translation by noting 'Does not translate'. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like translate_project.

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 on when to use the tool (adding languages) and directs to call translate_project after, indicating a sequential workflow. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like list_store_languages, missing an opportunity for exclusion guidance.

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