delete_default_position

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, indicating a mutating, destructive operation. The description adds nothing beyond the tool name, such as side effects, permanence, or 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, front-loaded sentence with no waste. However, it is terse to the point of providing minimal value beyond the tool name, so it is concise but slightly under-specified.

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?

The schema and annotations are strong (all params documented, destructive and non-read-only hints present), but the description fails to explain what a 'default position' is or any operational context. For a low-complexity tool, the definition is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptive text for all three parameters, including an example for document_id and an enumerated list for kb_document_type. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema's completeness.

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 'Delete a default position' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_default_position, get_default_position, list_default_positions, and update_default_position. The action and target are unambiguous.

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, no mention of prerequisites, consequences, or alternatives. It is a bare statement of the action with no context for decision-making.

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