delete_subposition

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. It does not disclose consequences, irreversibility, permissions, or any other behavioral traits, offering zero added value.

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 concise sentence that communicates the core purpose without waste. It lacks structure (e.g., bullet points), but for a simple delete operation, the brevity is acceptable and every word earns its place.

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 minimal description, lack of output schema, and annotations that only indicate safety profile, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what happens on success, error conditions, or any caveats. For a destructive operation, more context would be expected.

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 describes all three parameters with clear descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 sub position' clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (sub position), making the tool's purpose obvious. It distinguishes from sibling delete tools by the specific resource type, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or specific contexts. It merely states the action without mentioning scenarios, prerequisites, or related tools.

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