convert_units

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation scales to millimeters and that restore=True scales back down, implying reversibility. It does not state whether the change is permanent, whether it modifies the object in place, or whether it requires any preconditions, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.

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 dense paragraph with no wasted words, and the core scaling effect is given early. The opening phrase is slightly awkward, but the examples and restore behavior follow logically. It could be better front-loaded with an action verb, but it remains efficient.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the conversion behavior well but omits key context: what 'object' refers to, whether the operation is in-place or returns a new object, and any side effects. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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 compensate. It adds useful meaning for 'unit' (allowed values: inch, cm, meter) and 'restore' (scales back down), but it does not explain the required 'object' parameter at all. This partial coverage is just enough for a 3.

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 explains the specific operation: scaling an object from a source unit (inch, cm, meter) to millimeters, with an option to restore. It gives a concrete example (1-unit cube becomes 25.4, 10, or 1000 mm). It does not start with a crisp verb+resource phrase, but the effect is clear and distinct from generic transform 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 implies use when an object is modeled in non-mm units and points to import_model as the detector for such cases. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like transform_object or when not to use it. Usage context is inferred rather than spelled out.

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