place_hold

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

Annotations already declare a non-destructive write to an open-world system; the description adds a meaningful confirmation requirement before execution. It does not disclose failure modes (already-held, card limits) or idempotency, so the added context is helpful but thin.

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 sentences with zero waste; the action is front-loaded and the confirmation instruction follows immediately.

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 a full output schema and 100% parameter coverage, the description only needs to convey purpose and any pre-execution caveat, which it does. Minor gap: it doesn't mention the single-linked-card/library nuance, but that is covered by the schema.

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%, so both parameters (title_id, library) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource ('place a hold on a title'), distinct from siblings like cancel_hold or borrow. It doesn't explicitly contrast with borrow/renew, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

Adds a workflow prerequisite ('Confirm with the user first'), which is useful, but gives no guidance on when to choose hold over borrow or what conditions make a hold appropriate (e.g., title unavailable). Usage is implied rather than explained.

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