update_unit

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

The annotations already indicate this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as whether it performs a partial update or requires specific prerequisites.

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, compact sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise, though this brevity comes at the cost of detail.

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 annotations and a minimal schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain what fields are editable, whether it's a partial or full update, or the effect on the unit. This is insufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 schema describes unit_id as 'the id of the unit' but leaves name completely undocumented. The description does not explain that 'name' is the new value to set, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema description.

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 the tool edits a unit, clearly indicating a modification operation. However, it is essentially a synonym for the tool name/title 'Update Unit' and provides no specifics about what aspects of a unit can be edited, making it minimally informative.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus other unit-related tools like create_unit, delete_unit, get_unit, or list_units. There are no context or exclusion criteria.

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