update_text_position

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation, but the description adds no behavioral detail such as whether this is a partial or full update, required permissions, or side effects. It provides no transparency beyond the name and existing annotation hints.

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?

At four words, the description is under-specified, not concise. It essentially restates the tool name ('Edit a text position' vs update_text_position) without adding useful context or structure, and it fails to earn its place as an informative 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?

With five parameters, no output schema, and a crowded set of sibling position-update tools, the description is far from complete. It omits usage scenarios, parameter semantics, and behavioral expectations, making it insufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 describes three of five parameters (document_id, position_id, kb_document_type), but text and show_pos_nr remain undocumented. The description does not mention any parameters, so it fails to add meaning for the undocumented fields and does not compensate for the 60% schema coverage gap.

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 'Edit a text position' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating a mutation on a text position. However, it does not distinguish this from many sibling position-update tools like update_item_position or update_subposition, so it fails to differentiate within the broader toolset.

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. It lacks any context about appropriate scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction for tool selection.

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