Update A Manual Hold

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

The description discloses that only supplied fields are changed (partial update) and that the modified object is returned, which adds value beyond annotations. However, it does not elaborate on side effects, permissions, or the confusion about 'Invoices' versus manual holds. Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and destructiveHint.

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 relatively concise at 4 sentences, front-loading the action. However, the repeated incorrect use of 'Invoices' instead of 'manual holds' takes up space and reduces efficiency.

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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic action, endpoint, and return value. However, the confusion about the resource being updated and lack of error handling or permissions info leaves gaps. Annotations help, but the description could be more precise.

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?

The description lists required parameters but adds no new meaning beyond the input schema's descriptions, which already cover each parameter with 100% coverage. The mention of 'only the supplied fields are changed' hints at additional body fields not in the schema, introducing ambiguity.

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 states it updates a manual hold, but then confusingly refers to 'Invoices' repeatedly, which could mislead an agent into thinking the tool updates invoices directly rather than the hold. The verb and resource are clear in the first sentence, but the inconsistency weakens clarity.

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 usage for updating an existing hold (partial update) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like create or list. The sibling tools exist, but no guidance is provided.

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