Hold job

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, yet the description adds genuinely new behavior: ownership verification and a confirm gate before the action takes effect. It stops short of saying what holding actually does to the job's scheduling state, how long it persists, or how it is undone.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler. The action and its scope come first, followed by the confirm prerequisite and the conditional jobId rule, so nothing important is buried.

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 destructive, no-output-schema mutation tool the safety essentials (ownership, state, confirm) are covered, which is the critical part. What is missing is the operational meaning of a hold — whether the job stays queued, whether it is reversible, and how it relates to the release sibling.

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 only 50% — jobId and confirm have no schema descriptions — so the description has to carry them, and it does: confirm must be true, and jobId is optional only when a project scope is supplied. That clarifies both undocumented parameters and their dependency, though the jobId pattern/format is not explained.

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?

States a specific verb (Hold) plus resource (one of YOUR pending jobs) and adds a scope constraint (ownership verified), which implicitly separates it from cancel/release siblings. It does not, however, name or explicitly contrast against any sibling such as ris_cancel_job or ris_release_job, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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?

"Requires confirm=true. jobId optional only with a project scope." gives concrete preconditions for a successful call, which is real usage guidance. It still never says when to reach for hold versus cancel or release, so the when/when-not framing is left to inference.

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