hibob_update_position_opening

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the return format ('JSON confirming the update, or an error message beginning with Error:') and the rate limit (10 requests/minute). It does not expand on side effects or permission needs, but the annotations already convey read/write and destructiveness signals.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then follows a clear Args/Returns structure. The Args block is somewhat redundant with the schema, but overall it is efficient and readable.

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?

Combined with the rich input schema, output schema signal, and annotations, the description covers the key invocation details: parameters, return behavior, and rate limiting. It does not exhaustively list all updatable fields, but the examples plus open fields schema make the tool usable.

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 the baseline is 3. The description largely restates the parameter names and adds no significant meaning beyond the schema, though the schema's 'fields' example already provides formatting guidance.

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 a specific action—'Change an existing opening'—and gives concrete examples of what can change ('expected start date or recruitment status'). This clearly distinguishes it from create, cancel, delete, and budget-related siblings.

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 phrase 'existing opening' implies the tool is for updating already-created openings, and the sibling names clarify lifecycle alternatives. However, the description does not explicitly state when to choose this over create_position_opening or delete_position_opening, nor does it mention any preconditions.

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