unit_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a real behavioral consequence beyond the verb: the calling user becomes the owner. It does not cover duplicate-code handling, permission requirements, or return behavior, but the ownership context is genuine added value.

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 two short sentences with zero filler. The action is front-loaded and the ownership consequence is placed right after, so an agent can quickly understand the tool.

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 operation with no output schema and no annotations, it would be helpful to state what the call returns, such as a generated unit ID, and whether duplicate codes cause an error. The ownership statement partially compensates, but the missing return and error behavior leaves the description incomplete.

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%, and the schema already documents code, name, and info including the code pattern and lowercasing. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but none is needed because the schema handles the semantics.

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 names a specific action and resource: 'Create a unit.' It also adds a meaningful consequence, ownership by the calling user, which distinguishes this from other unit_* operations. The create verb clearly separates it from unit_get, unit_update, unit_list, and unit_delete.

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 implies this tool is for creating a brand-new unit, and the ownership note gives useful context. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or point to alternatives such as unit_update for modifying an existing unit. The usage guidance is mostly left to inference from the tool name.

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