train_units

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses server-side revalidation of ownership and available training options, that technology/resource/population/entity limits apply, and that the outcome must be observed via the queue and spawned units (i.e., it is not instantaneous). It omits failure modes and what happens when the queue is full or resources run out mid-batch.

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?

Two compact sentences: the action and its scope come first, followed by validation and constraint caveats. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the description covers constraints and validation but leaves gaps: no mention of the returned value (e.g., a queue entry or batch result) and no guidance on resolving a valid 'template'. Adequate, but an agent could still call it incorrectly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the count range ('1..100') and ties building_id to ownership of a completed building, but the critical 'template' parameter is only gestured at via 'units advertised by your building's training properties' — the accepted identifier format or where to obtain valid values is never stated.

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 verb and resource ('Queue ... units') and scopes it to 'your completed building's training properties', which separates it from siblings like order_units or move_units. It does not explicitly name which sibling to use for the non-training case, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 implied by 'advertised by your completed building's training properties' — you must own a finished building that offers the unit. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over order_units or how it relates to cancel_production, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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