Create unit

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the creation nature is consistent. However, the description adds no detail about side effects (e.g., overwrite behavior, uniqueness constraints, permissions) beyond the annotation.

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?

A single sentence is highly concise and front-loaded with the core action. It wastes no words, though it could be slightly expanded to include minimal context without harming 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?

For a create tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks typical completeness. It does not mention naming rules, uniqueness, or post-creation behavior. Sibling tools are numerous, but the description offers no help in distinguishing when to pick 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 coverage is only 33% (fraction and use_abbreviation have descriptions). The description does not explain the meaning of name, plural_name, abbreviation, or description. It fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 verb 'adds' and the resource 'measurement unit to the group vocabulary'. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_units (listing) and merge_units (merging).

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as merge_units or checking for existing units. No prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios are mentioned.

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