update_hold

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

Annotations already establish that the tool is not read-only and not destructive; the description adds the endpoint and the modifying nature ('Update', POST). It does not describe success/error behavior, partial-update semantics, or side effects, so it adds only modest behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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?

Three concise sentences with no wasted words. The primary action is first, followed by the endpoint, the parameter requirement, and the sequencing cue.

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 single-parameter mutation on a known resource, the description covers the purpose, the required payload shape, and the preceding step. It doesn't detail the response or error cases, but no output schema is present and the operation is simple enough that this is a minor gap.

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 only defines a generic hold_json string with 0% description coverage, so the description must carry the meaning. It does: hold_json must contain the id plus fields to change, with alias and timeRanges as examples. Some detail is left to the endpoint's API contract, but the core semantic is conveyed.

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 states a specific action ('Update an existing Hold') and resource, immediately distinguishing it from get_hold, create_hold, and delete_hold. The endpoint reference and instruction to call after get_hold/get_holds reinforce the targeted behavior without ambiguity.

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 clear context for when to use it: only to modify an existing Hold, and it tells the agent to call get_hold/get_holds first. It doesn't explicitly enumerate when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling set and the verb make the boundary clear.

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