etabs_set_units

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

The description discloses a genuinely important global side effect beyond the annotations: all tool inputs and outputs use the present units, so changing them affects the interpretation of every other call. This is valuable context the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false) do not convey. It doesn't state permissions or whether existing values get reinterpreted, so not a full 5.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the core action front-loaded and the global-effect caveat immediately following.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the key global side effect is stated. However, for a tool that mutates the model's unit system, missing guidance on ordering relative to other operations and the effect on existing model data leaves it only minimally 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 description coverage is 0% and the description says nothing about the single "units" parameter. The 16-value enum is fairly self-documenting, but the description adds no meaning about accepted formats or the consequence of the choice beyond what the enum lists.

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+resource ("Set the present units"), which is unambiguous and lets an agent know it configures the model's active unit system. It does not need sibling differentiation since no other tool sets units, but the term "present units" is slightly jargon-heavy.

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 call this tool, whether it must precede other operations, or what happens if it's invoked mid-session. The description gives no context for choosing to set units now versus leaving the default.

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