request_hold_changes

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

Annotations only provide openWorldHint, so the description carries most of the burden and does well: it discloses that notes is REQUIRED for the 'minor' kind, and that when a provider cannot action the request via API (Printful today) the result is deferred with a dashboard_url. This is meaningful outcome behavior not present in structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the change_kind semantics, then the deferred-result caveat and prerequisite lookup. Efficient overall, though the trailing '[#acd99f]' artifact is stray noise that should not be in the definition.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly covers the possible outcomes (immediate action vs. deferred with dashboard_url) and the required prerequisite lookup, which is what an agent needs to call it correctly. Only the absence of explicit failure/permission behavior keeps it short of a 5.

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 schema already documents every parameter including the change_kind enum. The description reinforces the notes-required-when-minor rule but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, making baseline 3 appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Request design changes on a held shipment') and explicitly positions it against the sibling action ('instead of approving it'), so an agent can distinguish it from approve_order_hold without opening a 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?

It states the condition for use (on a held shipment, as an alternative to approving) and names the prerequisite source for hold_uuid via list_order_holds. It does not spell out when the tool should NOT be used beyond the implicit contrast with approval.

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