hibob_delete_position_opening

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

Beyond the annotations already marking this as destructive and non-read-only, the description adds critical behavior: the action is permanent and cannot be undone through the API, the rate limit is 10 requests/minute, and the return value is either a JSON confirmation or an 'Error:' prefixed message. This substantially exceeds what annotations alone convey.

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 and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by irreversible consequences, confirmation guidance, args, return value, and rate limit. The Args block is slightly redundant with the 100%-covered schema, but the overall length is reasonable and every section serves a clear purpose.

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 destructive two-parameter operation, the description is complete: it explains irreversibility, provides a verification step, specifies the return format including failure behavior, and notes the rate limit. Despite the presence of an output schema, the return description adds further clarity.

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%, so both parameters are already fully documented in the input schema. The description's Args section largely repeats this information without adding new semantics, though it does clarify the relationship between position_id and opening_id.

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 'Permanently remove an opening from a position,' which clearly identifies the specific verb (remove), resource (opening), and container (position). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, update, and search operations on openings and positions without needing to inspect schemas.

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 instructs the agent to 'Confirm the opening ID with hibob_search_position_openings before calling,' naming the exact sibling tool to use first. It also communicates that the deletion is permanent, making the 'when to use' decision unambiguous.

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