units_assemble

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses a key safety property: human-assembled units are never replaced. However, it does not explain behavior for auto-assembled units without the 'replace' parameter, nor does it describe idempotency, permissions, or potential side effects beyond the schema's 'replace' field description. The note adds value but is incomplete 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 concise, consisting of two short sentences with no redundant phrasing. The primary purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds a critical constraint. It is appropriately sized for the operation, though it could benefit from a brief usage note without becoming verbose.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and a key safety behavior, but it lacks guidance on when to invoke this tool, any prerequisites (e.g., table existence or prior proposal step), and what happens to existing auto-assembled units when 'replace' is false. The output schema is present, so return format is handled, but the description does not fully contextualize the tool within a workflow, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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 both parameters ('table' and 'replace') are already documented with clear descriptions. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or context for the parameters, relying entirely on the schema. This meets the baseline for a fully covered schema, but no extra value is provided.

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 states a clear verb ('write') and resource ('review units for a table'), which conveys the core action. It does not explicitly name sibling tools for differentiation, but the action is specific enough to distinguish from related operations like 'units_propose' or 'table_read'. The mention of never replacing human-assembled units adds a scoping constraint, though the purpose is still slightly reliant on domain knowledge.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical invocation contexts, or cases where a sibling tool like 'units_propose' would be more appropriate. The only hint is the action of writing units, which implies usage but leaves the decision to the agent without clear cues.

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