eda_sys_i18n_import_multilingual_language

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions that the tool imports multilingual data and returns success, but it does not specify side effects such as whether existing languages are overwritten, whether namespace/language must already exist, or any permission/authorization requirements. For a state-changing operation, this lack of detail is a significant gap.

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 concise: one line with the signature and two short lines of Chinese explaining the purpose and return. It gets to the point quickly with no redundant prose. A small deduction because the return type is stated twice (in the signature and in 'returns: 导入是否成功'), which is slightly redundant but not harmful.

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 write/import tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the source data format (TSYS_LanguageKeyValuePairs) beyond the type name, nor document failure modes, idempotency, or interaction with the current language. An agent lacks enough context to confidently invoke this tool correctly, especially regarding the exact structure of the source argument.

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 description includes the exact function signature with parameter types (namespace: string, language: string, source: TSYS_LanguageKeyValuePairs), which clarifies the meaning of the opaque 'args' array in the schema. The schema only describes args as a JSON array in official order, so the description adds crucial semantic detail about each positional element. It does not, however, describe the structure or expected values for TSYS_LanguageKeyValuePairs.

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's function: it imports multilingual language data by specifying a namespace and language, returning a boolean success indicator. The verb 'importMultilingualLanguage' and the resource are specificholistic, and the tool is distinct from siblings focused on reading language info or managing listeners. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with the closely related sibling tools like eda_sys_i18n_import_multilingual, which slightly reduces differentiation.

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 the sibling i18n import tools (e.g., eda_sys_i18n_import_multilingual, eda_sys_i18n_import_multilingual_namespace). It does not state conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives. An agent would have to infer usage solely from the name and signature, which is insufficient for correct selection.

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