update_units_merge

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but provides zero behavioral information. Does not explain what the merge entails (e.g., deletion of fromUnit, relinking of references, idempotency). No disclosure of destructive nature or recovery options.

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?

At two words, it is extremely concise but at the expense of clarity. This is under-specification, not effective conciseness. A useful description would be longer but still 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 potentially destructive merge operation with 3 parameters and an output schema, the description is woefully incomplete. Does not explain return values, side effects, or how this tool fits among siblings. The agent cannot make an informed decision to invoke this tool.

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 adds no parameter semantics. Fails to explain the roles of 'fromUnit' (source) and 'toUnit' (target) or the optional 'accept-language' parameter. The agent has no clue how to fill these parameters correctly.

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?

Description is 'Merge One' which is essentially a tautology of the tool name 'update_units_merge'. It does not specify the resource (units) or the action (merging two units into one) beyond what the name implies. No distinction from sibling tools like 'update_units_by_item' or 'update_foods_merge'.

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 use this tool versus alternatives such as 'update_units_by_item' or 'update_foods_merge'. No criteria for merging units versus updating individually, no prerequisites or context about required permissions or side effects.

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