place_hold

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key constraint (one active hold per title per branch), which is likely an error condition. However, it doesn't say what happens when a hold already exists, whether a queue position is assigned, or what permissions are required.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the constraint following immediately; no filler or redundancy.

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 not be explained, and the duplicate-hold rule is covered. Still missing for a mutation tool with zero annotations are failure behavior, required permissions, and any guidance on parameter formats.

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%, so the schema provides no meaning for 'title' or 'branch'. The description merely repeats the parameter names without specifying expected formats (title string vs. ID, branch name vs. code), so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Place a hold') and clarifies that a hold means 'waiting status' at a branch, which distinguishes it adequately from update_hold and cancel_hold by implication. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings as alternatives, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 business rule 'one active hold per title per branch' implies this is for creating a new hold rather than modifying an existing one, but the description never says when to use this versus update_hold or cancel_hold, nor whether the caller should check list_holds first.

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