update_association_unit

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

With no annotations present, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies mutation but fails to describe whether it is a partial or full update, what happens if the unit does not exist, or any side effects. This is a significant omission for a mutation 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 clear sentence and is not verbose, but it is underspecified for a tool with no annotations and minimal schema documentation. It is concise but lacks necessary details, making it less effective than a well-rounded description.

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 complexity of nested objects and the presence of an output schema, the description is far too sparse. It does not address update semantics, parameter meanings, or expected behavior, leaving the agent without critical context to invoke the tool 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?

The input schema has 2 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain what unit_data should contain, how unit_id is used, or the format expected. There is no attempt to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 action (update) and the resource (association unit), making the primary purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like update_association or create_association_unit, but the resource name is specific enough for basic identification.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_association_unit or list_association_units. The description only implies that it is for existing units but offers no context on prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions.

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