Delete Autohold

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds valuable context by requiring ZUUL_READ_ONLY=false for write access and specifying that autohold_id should be obtained from list_autoholds. This clarifies operational prerequisites and dependencies 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?

The description is extremely concise and well-structured: a single-line purpose, a requirement, and a clean argument list. Every sentence adds essential value with no filler or 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?

For a simple delete operation with two parameters and an output schema, the description covers all necessary invocation details: purpose, prerequisite, and parameter sources. The destructive nature is already captured by annotations, making this sufficiently complete for an agent to use 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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for parameter semantics. It explains autohold_id as the ID from list_autoholds and notes that tenant defaults from the environment, adding meaningful guidance beyond the schema's bare type definitions.

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 'Delete an autohold request' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like autohold_create and list_autoholds. The purpose is unambiguous and action-oriented.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions a prerequisite (ZUUL_READ_ONLY=false) but does not provide context for when deletion is appropriate or when to prefer other autohold-related tools.

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