cancel_hold

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered; the description still adds real value by disclosing the concrete consequence — the user loses their place in the queue — and by requiring user confirmation before invocation. It stops short of saying whether the cancellation is reversible or whether the hold can be re-placed at the same position.

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?

Two short clauses, consequence front-loaded after the action, and the confirmation requirement stated last. No filler; every phrase carries 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?

With annotations covering safety, a full output schema, and 100% parameter documentation, the description supplies the one thing structured data lacks: the user-facing consequence and the confirmation requirement. Only the reversibility of the cancellation is left unstated.

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 100% and both parameters (library, title_id) are documented in the schema, so the description need not carry parameter detail. It adds nothing beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when coverage is complete.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Cancel a hold') with the added consequence of losing queue position, so the agent knows exactly what operation is performed. It does not name or contrast with siblings like place_hold or return_loan, so it falls short of a 5.

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 instruction 'Confirm with the user first' is a genuine usage prerequisite for a destructive action and is the most valuable guidance here. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or comparison to alternatives (e.g., vs. return_loan or place_hold), so usage context is only implied.

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