delete_discount_position

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

The annotations already flag the operation as destructive and idempotent, and the description simply repeats 'Delete' without adding anything about consequences, irreversibility, or impacts on related documents. No additional behavioral context is provided.

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, consisting of a single clause, but it is under-specified and adds little value beyond the tool name. While there is no verbosity, the lack of substance makes it not a model of effective conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature and the existence of many similar position-deletion tools, the description is too terse to provide a complete understanding. It does not explain what a discount position is, how deletion affects the parent document, or when it is appropriate, relying entirely on schema and annotations.

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 fully documents all three parameters with descriptions and an enum for kb_document_type, so the 100% schema coverage meets the baseline. The description itself contributes no parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the tool deletes a discount position, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from other delete tools by specifying 'discount position' rather than other position types, though it provides no additional context beyond the tool's name.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as delete_item_position or delete_subtotal_position. It lacks any mention of document types, prerequisites, or when deletion is appropriate, leaving the agent to infer from the name and schema.

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