update_unit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It only discloses partial update behavior but omits side effects, error handling (e.g., if unit not found), authorization needs, or return value information.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. It is concise without being overly terse, but a bit more context could be added without losing conciseness.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal. It clarifies partial update behavior, which is crucial, but lacks details on error conditions, idempotency, or what the response contains. Adequate but with gaps.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any new meaning beyond the schema's field descriptions; it only restates the partial update concept. No parameter-level elaboration.

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 specifies the action 'Update' and the resource 'existing property unit', with the additional behavior 'Only supplied fields are changed' indicating a partial update. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_unit (create vs update) and delete_unit (delete vs update).

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 implies usage for modifying an existing unit, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use (e.g., if the unit doesn't exist, use create_unit) or alternatives. The prerequirement that the unit must exist is not stated.

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