common-add-item-version-by-path

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it 'creates a version' but doesn't clarify if this is a write operation (implied), what permissions are required, whether it's idempotent, or how errors are handled. The description mentions 'based on an existing language version' but doesn't explain what happens if that version is missing (though the 'ifNoSourceVersion' parameter hints at this). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without redundancy. It front-loads the key action ('Creates a version') and specifies the method ('by its path') and context ('in a new language based on an existing language version'). Every word earns its place, making it highly concise.

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 complexity (9 parameters, mutation operation, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior beyond the basic action, lacks guidance on usage scenarios, and omits details about return values or error conditions. For a tool that creates language versions with multiple configuration options, more context is needed to ensure proper agent understanding.

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 78% (high), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain the purpose of 'recurse', 'ifExist', or other parameters. While it implies language handling, the schema already documents 'language' and 'targetLanguage' parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't compensate for the 22% coverage gap (e.g., for parameters without descriptions).

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 action ('Creates a version') and resource ('item (by its path)') with specific context ('in a new language based on an existing language version'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'common-add-item-version-by-id' by specifying the 'by-path' approach, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other version management tools like 'common-remove-item-version-by-path'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. While the description implies it's for creating language versions of items, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing source language versions), when to choose this over 'common-add-item-version-by-id', or what happens if the item doesn't exist. The sibling list includes many related tools, but the description offers no comparative context.

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