create_language_variant

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses two important behaviors: the variant joins the source's multi-language group, and the tool does not translate. However, it does not state whether the variant is created as a draft or immediately published, nor does it mention permissions or other side effects, which are nontrivial gaps for a create operation.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by key behavioral caveats and a clearly formatted parameter list. Every sentence contributes useful information without repetition or fluff.

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 has 5 parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential purpose, behavior, and parameter semantics well. It is slightly incomplete in that it doesn't clarify draft versus live state or explicitly route users away from related tools like duplicate_page, but those are minor given the strong parameter and behavior coverage.

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 0%, and the description compensates by explaining all five parameters: source page ID, source type values, ISO 639-1 language code, explicit slug, and translated module content override. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema, especially for target_language and layout_sections_override.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a language variant of an existing page, e.g. EN from a DE page.' This unambiguously distinguishes it from generic draft-creation or duplication siblings, and the multi-language group detail clarifies the intended result.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when you need a localized variant that joins the source's multi-language group and should appear in the language switcher. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the 'existing page' and 'language variant' framing implies the right selection criteria.

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