delete_text_position

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the word 'delete'. It does not mention irreversibility, cascading effects, or required permissions, providing no extra value over 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 ultra-concise at just four words, and it is not a tautology. However, it is under-specified, providing no useful information beyond the tool name and thus not earning its place as a meaningful description.

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 tool has a moderate complexity with three required parameters including an enum for document types, and no output schema. The description does not explain what a text position is, when deletion is valid, or any consequences, leaving the agent without essential context. Sibling tools like delete_subposition and delete_pagebreak_position further highlight the lack of distinguishing context.

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 description coverage is 100%, and all three parameters (kb_document_type, document_id, position_id) are fully described in the input schema. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies due to full schema coverage.

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 action ('Delete') and the resource ('text position'), which is a straightforward verb+resource combination. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like delete_item_position or delete_subposition, so it lacks explicit 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool or how it compares to alternatives such as delete_item_position or delete_subposition. The description simply states the action without any contextual cues about document types or prerequisites.

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