update_default_position

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

The description discloses no behavioral traits beyond what the annotations already indicate. Annotations show readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which align with 'Edit', but the description adds no context about side effects, partial updates, validation errors, or any special behavior. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 concise at just one short sentence, which is positively no wasted words. However, it is under-specified for a tool with 14 parameters and 3 required parameters. The conciseness sacrifices useful detail about what 'editing' entails.

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 absence of an output schema, the complexity of 14 parameters, and the need to understand what a default position is, this description is severely inadequate. It provides no explanation of the resource, the editing semantics, or the relationship among required parameters, making it impossible for an agent to correctly use the tool 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 description adds no information about the 14 parameters. Although the schema provides descriptions for 64% of parameters, the description itself does not compensate for the undocumented ones. It fails to explain the meaning of required fields like kb_document_type, document_id, or position_id, leaving the agent to rely entirely on the schema.

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 ('Edit') and the resource ('default position'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_default_position, delete_default_position, and get_default_position. It is not merely a restatement of the tool name, though it lacks details on what fields can be edited.

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 vs alternatives, such as when creating a new position or deleting one. There is no mention of prerequisites or recommended context. It merely states the action, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name.

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