create_subposition

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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds no behavioral context beyond the word 'create'. It does not mention side effects, required document existence, or relationship to offers/orders/invoices, nor does it contradict the annotations.

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 extremely short, which could be concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently structured. It lacks essential information that should be front-loaded, making it inadequate as a standalone explanation.

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?

With four parameters, two required, no output schema, and a domain-specific concept, the description is wholly incomplete. It fails to define what a subposition is, how it attaches to documents, or any contextual constraints, making it nearly impossible to use correctly without external knowledge.

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?

The schema documents only two of four parameters (kb_document_type and document_id), leaving text and show_pos_nr with no explanation. The description mentions no parameters and does nothing to compensate for the 50% schema coverage gap, providing zero additional semantic value.

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 'Create a sub position' is a direct restatement of the tool name, offering only a verb and resource without explaining what a subposition is or how it differs from sibling position-creation tools like create_item_position or create_discount_position. This qualifies as a tautology rather than a clear, distinguishing purpose.

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 on when to use this tool, which document types are applicable, or how it compares to alternatives. It lacks any context about prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the schema and tool name.

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