language_create

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false. The description confirms creation (non-read-only) and adds context about required fields and flat body. It does not contradict annotations, and the added details are helpful beyond the annotations.

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 with only three sentences, front-loading the purpose and key parameter requirements. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy.

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?

The description covers the input parameters well, but it does not mention the response (e.g., return value or error handling). Since there is no output schema, the agent might benefit from knowing what the tool returns. However, for a creation tool, this is a minor gap.

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 high (89%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by summarizing required/optional parameters and clarifying code format (e.g., 'pass region separately'). It also highlights the flat body requirement, which is not evident from the schema alone.

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 adds a new language to the Voog site and includes the HTTP method and endpoint (POST /languages). It distinguishes from siblings like language_delete and languages_list by focusing on creation.

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?

It explicitly lists required and optional parameters with format specifications (ISO codes). It also notes the body is flat, which helps avoid common mistakes. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough to infer.

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