advance_unit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds useful behavioral details: every node sharing the unit_tag must pass its own guard, and one failure rejects the whole request. However, it does not disclose side effects, idempotency, whether the request is asynchronous, or what happens on success.

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 highly concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The two additional sentences add meaningful caveats without padding. The phrase 'There is no unit table' is cryptic but still earns its place as a clarifying 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 state-changing tool with no annotations, no output schema, and six undocumented parameters, the description is incomplete. It gives no parameter semantics, no usage preconditions, no return behavior, and no side-effect disclosure, leaving an agent to guess at important invocation details.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate, but it barely does. It mentions unit_tag in the guard condition, but the required session_id and parameters like manual_override, expected_state_version, node_id, and request_id are left unexplained.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Request the next unit.' It is clear enough to identify the tool's core function, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from closely related siblings like start_unit, check_advance_unit, or rollback_unit.

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 alternatives. It does not mention check_advance_unit as a precondition, nor does it state when advancing is appropriate. The context is implied only by the tool name and the phrase 'next unit.'

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