update_subposition

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

The annotations already communicate that this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false), but the description adds no further behavioral context—it doesn't state whether editing is limited to certain fields, if prior existence is required, or what happens to linked data. With no output schema, the agent gains no insight into the operation's effects or return 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 one sentence and free of redundancy, which is efficient. However, it is so brief that it borders on under-specification, though conciseness itself is achieved.

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?

For a tool with five parameters and no output schema, this description is insufficiently informative. It fails to explain what a subposition is, what fields can be edited, or any constraints implied by the document type, making the tool hard to use 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 schema provides descriptions for kb_document_type, document_id, and position_id, but the parameters text and show_pos_nr are unexplained. The description 'Edit a sub position' offers no clarification of these parameters, and with 60% schema coverage, the missing parameter semantics are not compensated for.

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 states a clear action ('Edit') and a specific resource ('a sub position'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_subposition, delete_subposition, and get_subposition. However, it lacks any scope or qualification about which aspects of the sub position can be edited, so it is not as rich as a top-tier description.

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 information about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as whether it is the sole way to modify a subposition or if there are prerequisites like the document type. It also doesn't mention any conditions that must be met before editing, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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