hold_deliveries

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action ('hold deliveries') and return type ('summary of held deliveries'). It lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is reversible, what permissions are needed, if it affects billing, error conditions, or rate limits. This is inadequate for a mutation tool.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by organized parameter and return sections. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant information, making it highly efficient for quick comprehension.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool with 4 parameters, the description is incomplete. It covers parameters well but misses behavioral context (e.g., side effects, error handling) and output details beyond a vague 'summary', leaving gaps for safe agent operation.

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 description must compensate—it does so by explaining all 4 parameters with clear semantics: order_id identifies the package, hold_start/end define the date range, and order_types specifies meal types with examples. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't cover format details like date validation.

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 the verb ('Hold (pause)') and resource ('deliveries') with specific scope ('for a date range'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'skip_day' or 'reschedule_delivery' which might have overlapping functionality, preventing a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'skip_day', 'reschedule_delivery', or 'bulk_reschedule'. It also doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication status) or contextual constraints, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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