agenthold

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and comprehensively discloses behavioral traits: it explains the concurrency control mechanism (exclusive access), required preconditions (registration), usage patterns (claim right before modification, release after), and detailed response handling (claimed, already_claimed, busy with actions for each).

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose and importance, followed by usage rules and response details. Every sentence earns its place by providing critical information without 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?

Given the tool's complexity (concurrency control with no annotations and no output schema), the description is complete: it covers purpose, usage, parameters, behavioral outcomes, and integration with siblings, providing all necessary context for an agent to use it correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing context for the 'resource' parameter (e.g., 'filename as the resource identifier' with examples like 'intro.md'), reinforcing the schema's description, but doesn't significantly enhance the 'agent_id' parameter beyond the schema.

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 with specific verbs ('claim exclusive access to a resource before modifying it') and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it's for claiming resources before editing, unlike agenthold_register (for registration), agenthold_release (for releasing), agenthold_status (for checking status), and agenthold_wait (for waiting).

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('call this before editing any file or shared resource when other agents may be working in the same environment'), when-not-to-use ('do not claim multiple resources in advance'), and alternatives ('work on a different resource, or call agenthold_wait'), with clear prerequisites ('must call agenthold_register first').

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