unit_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a write operation that creates a stub, but it does not disclose side effects, overwrite behavior, permission requirements, or whether the operation is reversible. The 'confirm' mention hints at confirmation but is too ambiguous to count as clear behavioral transparency.

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 purpose is front-loaded in a single sentence and the args are listed compactly. There is minimal wasted text, though 'domain: Domain' adds little and 'confirm: Required' is ambiguous. Overall it is well-structured and appropriately sized.

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 four parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is not complete enough. It omits prerequisites, confirmation semantics, parameter formats, and clear routing to sibling tools. The output schema exists but does not compensate for the missing behavioral and parameter guidance.

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 document parameters itself. 'domain: Domain' is tautological, 'name' adds the useful 'saved as domain_name' detail, and 'impersonate: Owning user' gives some meaning. However, 'confirm: Required' conflicts with the schema, which lists confirm as optional with a default of false, and no format or constraint details are provided.

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 clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('empty Nginx Unit application stub'), and narrows the scope by noting the JSON will be edited later in the panel. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like unit_list and unit_delete, which are the read and delete counterparts.

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 phrase 'Create an empty Nginx Unit application stub' implies this is for initial creation, and '(then edit JSON in the panel)' suggests follow-up configuration happens manually. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use this tool, leaving the decision to inference.

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