Hold

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation, but the description adds no behavioral context. It does not explain what happens to the call, whether hold is reversible, or any prerequisites such as an active call.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than useful conciseness. The endpoint path is the only extra detail, and it does not help an agent understand the action.

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 CTI action requiring mac, line, and call_id, the description does not provide enough context to invoke it confidently. The annotations and complete schema help, but the description itself is almost entirely absent.

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 100%, so the schema itself documents all four parameters. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 only restates the tool name/title as 'Hold' and adds the raw endpoint path. It does not explain that this places an active call on hold or distinguish it from related CTI actions like resume or hangup.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or how it relates to alternatives such as placetel_cti_resume, placetel_cti_hangup, or placetel_cti_answer.

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