ps_hold_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'Controls when operations are held for human review,' which implies it affects system behavior, but it doesn't detail critical aspects like whether this requires admin permissions, if changes are reversible, potential side effects, or how it interacts with other tools. For a configuration tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose. There is no wasted language or redundancy, making it efficient and easy to understand at a glance.

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 complexity of the tool (with nested parameters and no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage, behavioral context, and output expectations. With no annotations and incomplete guidance, it meets the minimum viable standard but has clear gaps.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation of parameters like 'action' and 'config'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the meaning of thresholds or hold behaviors. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Configure hold behavior and thresholds' and 'Controls when operations are held for human review.' It specifies the verb ('configure') and resource ('hold behavior and thresholds'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ps_hold_approve' or 'ps_hold_list', which is why it doesn't reach a score of 5.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools or specific contexts for usage, such as when to configure holds versus using other hold-related tools like 'ps_hold_approve'. This lack of explicit or implied usage scenarios results in a low score.

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