legal_litigation_hold_release

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

Without annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It mentions routing through a dispatcher but does not reveal whether the action is destructive, requires permissions, or what side effects (e.g., hold removal) occur. This is insufficient for a legal action.

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?

The description is brief and front-loaded with the main purpose. The routing sentence and args list are efficient, though the args section is minimal. No wasted words.

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?

Given the complexity of a litigation hold release, the description is sparse. It lacks details on behavior, prerequisites, return values (output schema exists but unmentioned), and how it fits with sibling hold actions. The agent would be underinformed.

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%, so description must compensate. It defines 'message' as 'Free-text objective' and 'inputs' as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs', adding some meaning beyond the schema but lacking specifics about expected JSON structure or constraints.

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 clearly states it runs the 'litigation_hold_release' domain agent action, distinguishing it from siblings like 'legal_litigation_hold_issue' and 'legal_litigation_hold_refresh'. The verb 'Run' and specific resource make the purpose unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like issue or refresh. Preconditions, postconditions, and context (e.g., existing hold required) are absent, leaving the agent to guess.

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