Supprimer un positionnement

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

Annotations already include destructiveHint: true, but the description adds valuable context: 'Action irréversible' (irreversible action) and a confirmation request if the MCP client supports elicitation. This goes beyond the annotation's basic destructiveness flag. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise, two sentences, and front-loaded with the action. The warning about irreversibility and confirmation is placed immediately after the action verb, making it highly scannable for an agent.

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 simple delete tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it states the action, warns about irreversibility, and notes the confirmation behavior. The output schema covers return values, so no further explanation is needed. It could mention side effects on related data, but that is not critical for this simple operation.

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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'id', including its pattern and description. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so it stays at the baseline of 3 since the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 uses the specific verb 'Supprime' (delete) and the resource 'positionnement de BoondManager', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like boond_positionings_create, boond_positionings_update, and boond_positionings_get. It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as indicating that it is for removing an existing positioning that is no longer needed. There is no mention of prerequisites or contexts where deletion should be avoided.

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