create_language

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

Annotations already convey that the operation is mutating and non-idempotent (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds a useful constraint that 'key' must be valid, but it does not disclose duplicate-key behavior or failure modes. This is adequate but not rich.

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: one front-loaded sentence followed by two clear bullets. It wastes little space, though the phrase 'This tool will' could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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 two-parameter create operation, the description covers the resource, project context, required key format, and optional display name. It omits return-value details and duplicate-key behavior, but the low complexity and existing annotations make 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?

The input schema covers both parameters with 100% coverage, including examples and optional status. The description restates the required/optional nature and adds 'must be a valid language key', but this is mostly emphasis rather than new semantic information. Baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific action ('create a new language') and resource ('language in your SimpleLocalize project'). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_language, update_language, and 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 provides clear context for when this tool is used — when creating a new language — and emphasizes the required key and optional name. It does not explicitly contrast with update_language or get_languages, but the creation intent is clear enough for an agent to choose correctly.

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