update_hold

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose two important traits: the ordered transition model and the irreversibility of status changes ('statuses cannot undo'). It omits other essentials for a mutation tool such as required permissions, what happens on an invalid transition, and whether a rejected update errors or is silently ignored. The 'YYYY-MM-DD-worthy caution' phrasing is evocative but imprecise as a behavioral signal.

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?

It is short and front-loads the transition sequence, which is the right priority. But the closing sentence 'Use YYYY-MM-DD-worthy caution' is an odd, opaque metaphor that costs a sentence without conveying a checkable rule, and the cancel clause would read better structured alongside the transitions.

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 state machine is adequately conveyed for a two-parameter mutation. Still missing is the interaction with the cancel_hold sibling, the exact status value used for cancellation, and error behavior for illegal transitions — meaningful gaps for a tool that mutates state irreversibly.

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 0% and the status parameter has no enum, so the schema alone leaves the agent guessing at accepted values. The description compensates substantially by enumerating the valid states (waiting, ready, picked_up) and implying a cancellation outcome. It does not clarify hold_id's format or whether 'cancel' is a literal status string or a separate operation.

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 names a concrete verb and resource and spells out the state machine it drives: 'waiting -> ready -> picked_up', which lets an agent understand the tool's effect without opening the schema. It does not differentiate itself from sibling tools, and its 'Cancel from waiting or ready' clause overlaps with the existing cancel_hold sibling, leaving some ambiguity about which tool owns cancellation.

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 gives real usage constraints by defining which transitions are legal and from which states cancellation is permitted, which is more than most descriptions offer. However, with a sibling named cancel_hold present, the agent gets no guidance on when to use this tool's cancel path versus that dedicated tool, so the routing decision 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.