cancel_hold

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. '(final state)' usefully signals that cancellation is terminal and the hold cannot be resumed, which is real behavioral value. It still omits permission requirements, idempotency, and the error behavior when the hold is not in a cancellable state.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the key constraint appears immediately. The parenthetical '(final state)' is slightly ambiguous — it could read as describing the hold's state rather than the effect of the call.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the tool is a simple one-parameter mutation. Still missing is what hold_id refers to and what happens on invalid states, which matters for a state-constrained cancellation.

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% for hold_id, so the description should compensate but does not — it adds no format, source, or validation meaning for the single parameter. The parameter is only inferable from the tool's subject matter, 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?

Names a specific verb and resource (cancel a hold) and adds a scope qualifier: the hold must be 'waiting or ready'. That qualifier distinguishes it from update_hold (which modifies an active hold) and place_hold/list_holds, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 phrase 'that is waiting or ready' implies a precondition for use, which is more than most definitions offer. However, it does not say what to do with holds in other states, whether update_hold is the alternative for non-terminal changes, or where a hold_id comes from (e.g., list_holds).

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