language_delete

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

The description goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by detailing that the language is 'IRREVERSIBLE' and that it 'unbinds associated content'. This adds behavioral context about what happens during deletion, which is not fully captured by the annotation alone.

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 exceptionally concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the core action and then deliver critical warnings. Every sentence adds essential information without 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 destructive nature, force requirement, and a safety suggestion, but lacks details on prerequisites (e.g., required permissions), response behavior, or asynchronous processing. For a delete tool with no output schema, it is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 adds minimal value beyond the input schema. It repeats the force=true requirement already documented in the schema and does not explain the 'site' parameter or provide new insights into 'language_id'. With 67% schema coverage, the description falls short of compensating for gaps.

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: 'Remove a language from the site (DELETE /languages/{id})', identifying the verb, resource, and HTTP method. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like language_create or languages_list by specifying deletion of a language, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 usage guidance by noting the requirement for force=true and suggesting a site_snapshot first if uncertain. However, it does not explicitly advise when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., other delete tools), leaving the context of use implied rather than explicit.

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