Autohold Details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description adds no extra context beyond that. It is consistent with annotations, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits like error handling or response specifics.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core action, followed by a compact Args list. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no redundant or irrelevant information.

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 get-by-ID tool with an output schema present, the description provides sufficient context. The annotations cover safety, the Args cover parameters, and the 'from list_autoholds' hint supplies workflow context, making the tool fully usable.

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 has no property descriptions (coverage 0%), but the description's 'Args' section fully compensates by explaining both parameters: autohold_id's source and tenant's default-from-env behavior. This adds clear meaning 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 uses a specific verb ('Get details') and a clear resource ('specific autohold request'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_autoholds. The title 'Autohold Details' reinforces the tool's unique focus.

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 implies usage context by noting that autohold_id comes from list_autoholds, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. The guidance is minimal and implied rather than direct.

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