modify_market_positioning

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clarifies the tool's dual read/update behavior and patch semantics, which is helpful. However, it doesn't mention permissions, side effects, or response format, leaving gaps for a mutation-capable tool. No contradictions exist.

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 core purpose, followed by clear usage instructions and parameter details. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (dual read/update functionality, 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage) and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage, and parameter semantics well, though it could benefit from mentioning authentication or error handling. The output schema reduces the need to explain return values.

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 effectively explains the semantics: 'product_slug' is implied as the target, 'market_position_patch' is detailed with expected keys and patch behavior, and 'client_id' is not mentioned but its optional nature is inferred from usage guidance. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 clearly states the tool's dual purpose: 'Read or update market positioning with explicit format guidance.' It specifies the resource ('market positioning') and the actions ('read' and 'update'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'configure_product_strategy' or 'configure_targeting' that might handle related aspects.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Call without `market_position_patch` to inspect current data before editing' and 'Send only keys you want to change (patch semantics).' This clearly indicates when to use the tool for reading vs. updating and how to structure updates, with no misleading or missing guidance.

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