update_service_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 of behavioral disclosure. While 'Actualizar' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't specify required permissions, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects, or what the response looks like (e.g., success confirmation or error handling). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that modifies data.

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, efficient sentence in Spanish ('Actualizar un idioma de servicio'), which directly conveys the core action without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse 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 the complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., permissions, side effects), usage context, and expected outcomes. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall tool understanding remains insufficient for safe and effective use.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('id' and 'name') clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the format of 'id' (e.g., numeric or UUID) or constraints on 'name' (e.g., length or uniqueness). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Actualizar' meaning 'Update') and the resource ('un idioma de servicio' meaning 'a service language'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_service_language' or 'delete_service_language', which would require mentioning it modifies existing records rather than creating or deleting them.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing service language ID), exclusions (e.g., not for creating new languages), or refer to sibling tools like 'create_service_language' or 'delete_service_language' for different operations.

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