Language Add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a creation/mutation operation but says nothing about permissions, side effects, configuration changes, or whether the language must be enabled after creation. This is a substantial gap for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified for a four-parameter mutation tool, so while concise it is not appropriately sized to the task.

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 four-parameter creation tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description is missing almost everything an agent needs: parameter semantics, prerequisites, and usage guidance. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be explained, but the rest of the description is inadequate.

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 provides no information about the four parameters (langcode, name, weight, direction) or their required status. The description adds no meaning beyond the bare schema, leaving langcode format, name constraints, weight purpose, and direction values entirely undocumented.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Add a new language.' An agent can identify the operation as creating a language. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools such as language_enable (enabling an existing language) or language_delete, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use language_add versus language_enable, language_disable, or language_list. No prerequisites, ordering, or exclusions are mentioned. The agent is left to infer usage entirely.

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