hold_cancel

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions one key behavior (releasing without capturing), but omits important details like required authentication, whether the hold ID must be valid, what happens to associated funds, or any side effects. The output schema exists but is not described.

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 a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. No extraneous information is included.

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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, 1 required) and the presence of sibling tools for other hold operations, the description is too brief. It fails to cover prerequisites (e.g., hold must exist), state expectations, or error conditions. The output schema exists but is not referenced, leaving the agent without context on return value semantics.

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%, meaning the description adds no information about parameters beyond the schema. The parameters (e.g., inv_id, merchant_login) are left unexplained, forcing the agent to infer their purpose from names alone. The description should at least indicate which parameters are important and how they relate to the cancellation.

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 tool's function: 'Release a hold without capturing the reserved funds.' It uses a specific verb ('Release') and resource ('hold'), and the action is distinct from sibling tools like hold_init (create hold) and hold_confirm (capture hold).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like hold_confirm or hold_cancel for other holds. It does not mention prerequisites, such as requiring an active hold, or scenarios where this tool should not be used.

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