update_language

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

Annotations already indicate the operation is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds that the existing languageKey is used to identify the target, and that only key/name can be optionally updated. It does not disclose deeper effects such as whether changing a language key cascades to translations, but for a simple update tool this is acceptable.

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?

Two concise sentences with a bullet-style list. The action and required identifier are front-loaded, and every sentence contributes useful guidance 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?

For a simple update operation with three well-documented parameters, the description is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. It covers required and optional inputs but does not mention return values or conflict behavior; the lack of an output schema makes this 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 description coverage is 100%, and each parameter already has a clear description. The tool description adds a little context by clarifying languageKey is the identifier and key/name are optional updates, but the schema already carries the main semantic load.

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?

Description clearly states a specific action ('update') on a specific resource ('a language in your SimpleLocalize project'), and the mention of 'existing languageKey' distinguishes it from creating or deleting a language. It is unambiguous and differentiates from sibling tools like create_language or delete_language.

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 explains the core usage pattern: provide the existing languageKey and optionally update key/name. It implies this tool is for modifying an existing language rather than creating one, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions.

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