unit_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral side effect: deleting the unit cascades to 'all its resources'. However, it does not state whether deletion is permanent or irreversible, what those resources exactly are, or any authorization requirements.

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 sentence with no filler. 'Delete a unit' is front-loaded, and 'all its resources' adds critical scope without unnecessary detail.

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 one-parameter destructive operation with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the core action and scope. However, it omits return behavior, irreversibility, and the exact set of affected resources, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent evaluating the consequences of invocation.

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 only parameter unitId is already documented as 'The unit ID to delete'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema alone is sufficient for this single-parameter tool.

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 uses the specific verb 'Delete', names the resource 'unit', and adds the important scope 'and all its resources'. This distinguishes it from sibling unit tools like unit_get, unit_update, and unit_list.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage solely from the tool name and the generic delete phrasing.

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