hibob_create_position_opening

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond those: a rate limit of 10 requests/minute, the exact return JSON shape, and an error prefix. This helps an agent anticipate failures and throttling.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, labeled Args, Returns, and Rate limit. Every line adds useful information without fluff or repetition.

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 description covers return format, error behavior, and rate limiting, while the output schema handles the return structure. It doesn't mention prerequisites beyond 'existing position' or auth concerns, but with a 2-parameter tool and rich schema, it is nearly complete.

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 schema already documents the required expectedStartDate and optional fields. The description restates parameter names and short meanings, adding little beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Add a vacancy to an existing position,' naming a specific action and resource. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like create_position or update_position_opening, and the phrase 'existing position' signals the parent context.

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 implies this tool is for adding a vacancy to an existing position, which gives some usage context but does not explicitly say when to prefer it over create_position or update_position_opening. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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