create_unit

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

With all annotations being false, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does it superbly. It discloses the confirmed live pattern for compound units, the client-side whitespace validation that Tally rejects ('Master name contains invalid characters'), and the fact that decimalPlaces is ignored for compound units. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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 long paragraph, but every sentence adds necessary information about simple vs. compound units, prerequisites, validation, or failure modes. The key usage requirement is front-loaded. It is dense rather than bloated, but it could benefit from clearer separation of the compound-unit-specific rules.

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 6-parameter tool with a complex compound-unit semantics, the description is complete: it explains the creation process, dependency chain, validation constraints, and when the tool is required. The absence of an output schema is acceptable for a creation tool, and the description provides everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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?

Even with 100% schema coverage, the description adds critical semantic meaning: it explains how baseUnit/additionalUnit/conversion work together only for compound units, that conversion is required when baseUnit is set, that decimalPlaces defaults to 0, and where whitespace is allowed (symbol vs. display name). This would not be obvious from the schema alone.

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 states the tool creates a 'Unit of Measure in TallyPrime' and distinguishes simple units (e.g., 'Kg') from compound units (e.g., 'Box of 12 Nos'). This specific verb-resource pair sets it apart from sibling tools like create_stock_item or create_group without needing to inspect schemas.

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 explicitly says when to use it: 'Required before creating or invoicing a stock item in a unit that doesn't exist yet' and describes the failure mode otherwise. It also gives a sequencing pattern (create simple units first, then compound), but it never explicitly names an alternative tool because none exists for this operation.

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