hibob_cancel_position

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses important behavioral traits: cancellation cannot be undone, HiBob refuses filled positions, and the tool is rate-limited to 10 requests/minute. It also describes the return contract (JSON confirmation or an 'Error:' string). No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and key warning, then follows a compact structured format for Args, Returns, and Rate limit. Every sentence adds value: purpose, precondition, irreversibility, parameter, return behavior, and rate limit. No filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter, clearly scoped cancellation tool, the description covers the essential context: purpose, precondition, irreversibility, error return, and rate limit. An output schema exists, so detailed return documentation is not required. Nothing material is missing for an agent to invoke this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the only parameter, position_id, is already documented in the schema as 'ID of the position to cancel.' The description's Args section merely repeats this meaning without adding format, source, or validation details, so it stays at the baseline.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Cancel a planned position, removing it from the workforce plan.' It clearly names the action and the object, and the mention of 'planned position' differentiates it from active/filled position operations and from sibling tools like create/update position.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent when to call this tool (to cancel a planned position) and gives a concrete precondition: check '/position/status' with hibob_search_positions first because HiBob refuses to cancel filled positions. This is actionable usage guidance that also names the sibling tool to use beforehand.

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