core_release_customerRelease a customer from credit hold. The release is its own logged act with its own reason — "who released it and why" is exactly the question that gets asked later. The limit applies again from the next confirmation. Effects: customer.on_hold cleared.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | Yes | Why the hold is lifted. | |
| customer_id | Yes | The customer. An existing customer id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already fix the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds genuine behavior beyond that: the release is separately logged, a reason is mandatory because it is audited later, the credit limit re-applies from the next confirmation, and the concrete effect is 'customer.on_hold cleared'. It does not address repeat invocation, which is notable given idempotentHint=false.
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 action is stated first, followed by rationale and then effects, so it is well front-loaded. The middle sentence about 'who released it and why' is slightly discursive but earns its place by justifying the required reason parameter.
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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers state effect, audit logging, and downstream consequences. The remaining gap is error/precondition behavior — what happens if the customer is not currently on hold.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema's terse 'Why the hold is lifted': it explains that the reason is the durable audit answer to 'who released it and why', motivating a substantive value rather than a placeholder.
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 verb and resource-state transition: 'Release a customer from credit hold.' That is unambiguous and clearly the inverse of the sibling core_hold_customer, so an agent can select it without inspecting either schema.
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?
Usage is only implied: the tool obviously applies to a customer currently on hold, but the description never states preconditions (does it fail if the customer is not on hold?), nor does it name or compare against alternatives such as core_update_customer or core_set_credit_limit for related credit changes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.