hpc_hold_job

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

Annotations already establish this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world mutation, which fits holding a job. The description adds the state constraint (pending) and ownership constraint, but does not state that the action is reversible via release or note any permission requirements beyond ownership.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word (hold, own, pending, job) carries distinguishing 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 one-parameter state-changing tool whose annotations cover the safety profile, the description is adequate but thin. It omits the reversibility relationship with hpc_release_job and any confirmation that the hold is idempotent, which would help correct invocation.

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% with a single well-documented job_id parameter including SLURM ID format examples. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specifies a concrete verb ("Hold") and resource ("pending jobs"), plus a scope constraint ("one of your own"). It is distinguishable from most siblings by the hold action, though it does not explicitly name the natural counterpart hpc_release_job.

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?

Usage is implied by the constraints "pending" and "your own" — an agent can infer it only works on jobs it owns that are queued. No explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or pointer to hpc_release_job for the inverse operation.

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