record_positioning

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full behavioral burden. It discloses rejection behavior on missing required fields, atomic 'one block' registration, required date format, and a concrete return payload (package definition freshness and count of presentations with filenames). It omits permissions/reversibility, but the core behavior is well covered.

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 short, front-loaded with the primary action, and each sentence adds a distinct piece: action, rejection condition, date format, and return value. No filler is present.

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?

Despite having 5 parameters (4 required) and no annotations, the description does not explain how to populate the main fields, nor does it clarify what qualifies as an exception. It covers the return behavior, which helps, but the calling contract is incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only addresses the date parameter ('2026-09-16' format); it gives no semantics for scope, headline_package, rationale, or exceptions. An agent would have to guess the meaning of headline_package and scope from names alone.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'register the sales-positioning decision as one block' (売り方の決めを1ブロック登記する). This clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_positioning (retrieval) and register_capability (capability, not positioning). It also states a behavioral guard: refuse without writing if required fields are missing.

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 usage context—register a positioning decision—and gives a date format rule, but it never states when to prefer this over siblings or mentions alternatives. There are no exclusions or routing cues beyond the resource type, so an agent could still be uncertain between record_positioning and register_capability.

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