hibob_create_position

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important runtime behavior: rate limiting ('HiBob allows only ten write calls per minute'), pre-request validation of required fields, and the fact that exactly one position is created per call. It also describes the return format and error convention, which is valuable context for an agent handling failures.

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 well-structured with a clear opening definition, explicit prerequisites, parameter summaries, return format, examples, and an anti-example. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important usage guidance is front-loaded. Despite length, it remains scannable and useful.

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 three nested object parameters and an open-world schema, the description is complete: it explains what a position is, what counts as the opening, how to resolve list IDs, what constraints apply, what the response looks like, and how to avoid misuse. The presence of an output schema reduces the burden of explaining return values, and the description still covers them.

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 input schema already covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that all three arguments are flat mappings, by explaining that HiBob list values must be list item IDs, and by instructing the agent to resolve those IDs first. This goes beyond the schema's individual field descriptions.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Create a planned position, with its opening and optional budget.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools, especially hibob_create_position_opening, by explaining that a position is a budgeted seat and must be created with its first opening. The 'one position per call' constraint further sharpens the purpose.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool and when not to, naming the alternative: 'Don't use when: adding a second vacancy to an existing position (use hibob_create_position_opening).' It also gives a concrete example of when to use the tool and instructs the agent to resolve list IDs with hibob_get_company_named_lists and hibob_list_workforce_fields before calling.

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