start_unit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Set the current teaching focus,' implying a mutation, but gives no details on side effects, reversibility, required context, or what happens to the previous focus. This is a significant gap for a state-changing tool.

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 short sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified. It lacks necessary detail and structure, making it insufficient for safe usage. The brevity is not effective conciseness but rather incompleteness.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and is a state-changing operation, the description is highly incomplete. It does not explain return values, prerequisites, or effects, making it impossible for an agent to use correctly without additional context.

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 does not compensate. It mentions 'unit or node' which hints at node_id and unit_tag, but does not explain the distinction, when to use each, or the meaning of request_id and session_id. The description adds virtually no value beyond the bare schema.

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 verb ('Set') and resource ('current teaching focus') with the object 'a unit or node.' It is clear about the action but does not differentiate from siblings like advance_unit or rollback_unit, which also modify teaching focus. The purpose is understandable but lacks explicit sibling distinction.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as advance_unit, rollback_unit, or get_teaching_context. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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