create_hold

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

Annotations already mark the operation as non-read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds the POST endpoint and required payload constraints. It does not disclose response behavior, side effects, authorization needs, or rate considerations, so the extra behavioral context is moderate but not rich.

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 short and front-loads the core action, endpoint, and main parameter requirement. The closing instruction 'Alias/title first' is cryptic and would benefit from clarification, but overall the text is efficiently structured without redundant filler.

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 simple one-parameter creation tool, the description covers the trigger, endpoint, and key payload fields. However, the vague 'usual Hold fields,' the ambiguous 'Alias/title first' phrase, and the absence of any response or error behavior leave meaningful gaps for an agent trying to invoke 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?

The schema provides only a single opaque string parameter, hold_json, with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by naming required fields (id, timeRanges, userPrimaryTimeZone) and referencing 'usual Hold fields,' though the latter remains vague and no format or example is supplied.

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?

Opens with a concrete verb-resource pair ('Create a Hold scheduling page') and names the HTTP endpoint, making the tool's function immediately clear. It is also easily distinguishable from sibling tools like get_hold, update_hold, and delete_hold because it explicitly targets creation of a new booking link.

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 gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Call when the user wants a new booking link.' It does not, however, mention sibling alternatives or explain when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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