goldhold_turn

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the compound nature and one-call behavior, but it does not disclose write side effects of send/store, whether operations are optional or combined, what compact does, or what the response looks like.

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, front-loaded with the core compound behavior, and contains no filler. The second sentence about being the primary tool adds usage context, though it is somewhat imprecise.

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 compound tool with nested objects, optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It does not explain how the three operations combine, the meaning of compact, return values, or how this relates to the many sibling tools.

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 already provides descriptions for send, store, and search, so the description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond naming the three operations. The compact parameter remains undocumented in both the schema and the description, leaving a noticeable gap.

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 this is a compound tool that combines search, store, and send in one call, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like goldhold_search, goldhold_store, and goldhold_send. It is more specific than a tautology, though 'the primary tool for most interactions' remains vague about what a 'turn' actually is.

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 primary tool for most interactions' gives a broad directive to prefer this tool by default, but it does not explain when to use dedicated siblings such as goldhold_send or goldhold_search instead. The usage guidance is implied rather than explicitly contrasted with alternatives.

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