Create Autohold

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description aligns with these and adds valuable context beyond them — the ZUUL_READ_ONLY=false environment requirement is a key behavioral constraint not captured in annotations. No contradiction between description and annotations; the description augments the safety profile with an operational prerequisite.

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 well-organized: a front-loaded purpose sentence, a one-line prerequisite, then a clean Args list. Every line earns its place — no filler, no repetition of schema fields, and the parameter list is structured for easy scanning.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with an output schema present, the description is complete: it covers purpose, environmental requirements, and every parameter's semantics, defaults, and optionality. The output schema handles return values, so no additional description of results is needed.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by documenting all 8 parameters with semantics ('project: Project name (e.g. org/repo)'), defaults ('count: Failed builds to hold (default 1)'), units ('node_hold_expiration: Seconds... default 86400 = 24h'), and optionality ('change: Change filter (optional)'). This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare 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 states a specific verb+resource ('Create an autohold request') with the precise purpose: 'hold nodes after a job failure for debugging.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like autohold_delete, list_autoholds, and get_autohold, which serve different lifecycle actions on the same resource.

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 conveys when to use the tool ('after a job failure for debugging') and states a critical precondition ('Requires ZUUL_READ_ONLY=false'). It names the context clearly but doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives (e.g., viewing existing holds via list_autoholds), though the create-vs-read distinction is fairly implicit.

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