ClockNext: update unit

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the critical behavioral trait that omitted optional fields are CLEARED, not preserved, and that changing agentKey re-points signals — important context beyond the annotations. No contradiction.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the key concept, then workflow, then warning. Every sentence is purposeful; no redundant phrasing.

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 an 8-parameter destructive update with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral concerns: full rewrite, clearing of omitted fields, workflow, and the agentKey side effect. It misses explicit error/return behavior, but schema covers parameter detail, so it is sufficiently complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents each parameter. The description adds the semantic that the object is a complete replacement, meaning omitted optional fields reset — a meaningful addition to understanding parameter behavior. However, it doesn't add per-parameter syntax or format details.

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 explicitly states 'Replace a unit by id with its COMPLETE new definition' — a specific verb, resource, and scope. It also distinguishes itself from a partial patch, clearly marking it as a full-update operation distinct from sibling create/archive tools.

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?

It instructs to 'Read the current unit with clocknext_get_unit first, edit, then send the whole object back,' providing a concrete when-to-use workflow. It warns about the agentKey re-pointing effect, but does not explicitly name alternative tools for partial updates, so a 4 rather than 5.

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