Language Disable

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden and delivers nothing: it does not say whether disabling is reversible via language_enable, what happens to content assigned to that language, whether the default language can be disabled, or what permissions are required. Only the bare implication of a state mutation exists.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of padding, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficiency. It is appropriately sized only in the sense that it contains no waste to trim.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and an undocumented parameter, the description is far too thin; the existence of an output schema only excuses the absence of return-value documentation, not the missing safety, reversibility, and parameter-format context. An agent cannot confidently call this tool from the description alone.

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?

There is one parameter, langcode, with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and does not. It never states the expected format (e.g., 'en', 'fr') or whether the code is required to already exist, leaving the agent to infer accepted values from nothing.

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 verb+resource pair ('disable a language') is understandable, but it is essentially a prose restatement of the tool name and adds no scope detail. It also fails to differentiate itself from the adjacent siblings language_enable, language_delete, and language_get, so an agent must guess at the boundary between disabling, deleting, and editing a 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling alternatives (language_enable, language_delete) that an agent would need to choose correctly. The only signal is the word 'disable' in the name itself.

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