disband_unit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely succeeds: it declares the operation irreversible and specifies the side effects (freed gold maintenance and strategic resources). It also discloses the return payload shape. It stops short of covering prerequisites or failure modes for this mutation.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the verb and object, then the destructive warning, then the effect and return detail. Every sentence carries distinct information with no padding.

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 single-parameter destructive action with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers irreversibility, side effects, and the shape of the return value, which is most of what an agent needs. Only prerequisites and error behavior are unaddressed.

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?

There is a single required unit_id parameter at 0% schema description coverage. The description only implies it identifies 'one of my units' and adds no format, sourcing, or validity detail beyond that. For a simple integer id this is adequate but not additive.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Disband (delete) one of my units') and ties it to a concrete UI affordance ('the unit panel's Disband button'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like upgrade_unit, move_unit, or unit_mission without opening any schema.

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 explains the outcome (frees gold maintenance and consumed strategic resources), which implies when it is useful, but it never states explicit when/when-not conditions or routes the agent to alternatives like unit_home_options or available_unit_actions. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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