Register Test Unit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly reveals that invalid units are rejected with issues and that duplicate ids are refused, giving an agent concrete error-path and idempotency expectations. It does not cover permissions or side effects, but core behavior is meaningfully disclosed.

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 appropriately compact and front-loads the verb and resource. The phrase 'with the issues listed' is slightly ambiguous because no list appears in the description, but otherwise every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with a nested object parameter, no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema coverage, this description is insufficient for correct invocation. Missing details include the unit's shape, validation criteria, where the duplicate id comes from, and the return/error format.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'profile' is the target and 'unit' is the test unit, and it implies an id exists for duplicate checks, but it does not explain unit structure, required fields, or id semantics. An agent cannot construct a valid 'unit' from this text alone.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Validate and persist a test unit for a profile.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like validate_test_unit by emphasizing persistence, and the rejection/duplicate behavior adds further specificity.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as validate_test_unit or register_adapted_units. The purpose is implied, but there are no explicit exclusions, prerequisites, or routing conditions.

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