cancel_unit_packing

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose meaningful preconditions: the transition must be active and the units must be owned. It does not state idempotency (what happens if a unit is already idle), whether cancellation is partial across the batch, error behavior for invalid/unowned ids, or any permission constraints.

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?

One compact sentence with the action front-loaded and the target qualifier trailing. Nothing is padded, though "folding or deployment transition" is slightly heavy phrasing that could be tighter.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers target type, ownership scoping, and batch semantics ('each selected'). The remaining gap is failure/partial-success behavior, which is not covered by any output schema either.

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 0%, so the description must supply meaning, and it does: the single entity_ids array is clarified as a batch of selected, owned siege units rather than arbitrary entities. It still omits id format and whether non-siege or unowned ids are rejected versus silently ignored.

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 gives a specific verb ("cancel") and a specific resource ("active folding or deployment transition") applied to a well-scoped target ("each selected owned siege unit"). An agent can tell this is the inverse of a packing/setting action, though it never names the sibling set_unit_packing that would make the routing explicit.

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?

Usage is only implied: the word "active" hints that the tool matters when a transition is in flight, and "owned" implies you cannot cancel enemy units. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not statement, no mention of what to do for units not transitioning, and no named alternative.

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