hold_job

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: the operation uses the JES2 $HJ command, is a gated write, and takes effect at the next step boundary.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with no waste. The core action and command are front-loaded, followed immediately by the timing behavior.

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 simple action tool with full schema coverage and meaningful annotations, the description is nearly complete. It covers the action, command, gated nature, and effect timing; it could go slightly further in explaining what the gate entails or linking to approve_write.

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 all three parameters (jobId, consoleName, environment) are already documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is 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?

States a specific verb and resource (hold a batch job) and identifies the underlying JES2 $HJ command. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like release_job, cancel_job, and submit_jcl.

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 when to use the tool by saying it holds a job and stops at the next step boundary, but it does not explicitly contrast this with release_job or cancel_job. 'Gated write' hints at an approval requirement without explaining when that gate applies.

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