update_subtotal_position

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

The description is terse and adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations already provide. It doesn't disclose that the update modifies only the text field, whether the document total is recalculated, or any permission requirements. Since annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description contributes no additional transparency.

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 4-word sentence, extremely concise with no filler. However, it is so minimal that it sacrifices necessary information, but that is a completeness concern, not a conciseness one. For its length, it is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and a mutation behavior, yet the description only says 'Edit a subtotal position'. It lacks context about the document types, the meaning of a subtotal position, how to obtain position_id, and what effect the edit has. This is inadequate for an agent to use the tool correctly without relying on schema alone.

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 covers 3 of 4 parameters with descriptions, but the 'text' parameter lacks any description. The tool description does not explain that document_id, position_id, and kb_document_type are identifiers and that text is the editable content. It adds no semantic value beyond 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 uses the verb 'Edit' with a specific resource 'subtotal position', clearly indicating a mutation of an existing subtotal position. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like update_subposition or other position update tools, and the name itself does most of the work.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that subtotal positions are found on quotes, orders, or invoices, nor does it distinguish editing from creating/deleting subtotal positions. The openWorldHint annotation suggests the tool may accept open-world inputs, but the description offers no situational advice.

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