feed_hold

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the action as 'controlled deceleration to stop' and characterizes it as 'safer than emergency stop', which provides useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, whether it requires the machine to be in a specific state, or what happens after the deceleration completes.

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 concise with just two sentences that both earn their place. The first sentence explains what the tool does, and the second provides crucial comparative context with emergency_stop. There's zero wasted language or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about what the tool does and when to use it. However, it doesn't explain what happens after the deceleration (does it pause the job? maintain position?) or whether there are any prerequisites (must be in a running state?). Given the complexity of machine control tools, more behavioral detail would be helpful.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain any parameters, and it appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and usage context without attempting to describe non-existent parameters.

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 purpose as 'controlled deceleration to stop', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from 'emergency_stop' by mentioning it's safer for non-critical situations, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other stopping-related siblings like 'stop_job' or 'pause_job'.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('for non-critical situations') and explicitly contrasts it with 'emergency_stop' as a safer alternative. However, it doesn't mention when NOT to use it or how it relates to other stopping mechanisms like 'stop_job' or 'pause_job'.

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