Create an issue tree hold

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation. The description adds no behavioral details (e.g., side effects of creating a hold, state changes). It does not contradict annotations.

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 concise (one line) but at the cost of informative content. It is front-loaded but lacks structure; could be improved with bullet points or expanded context.

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?

Given the complex schema (nested objects, enums), output schema presence, and no description of return values or operational context, the description is severely incomplete. The agent lacks understanding of what tree holds are and how they work.

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 coverage is 0%; the description adds no meaning for any parameter. The complex body schema (mode, reason, metadata, releasePolicy) is left entirely to the agent to interpret from the raw schema. This is a significant 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 states it creates an issue tree hold, specifying the verb and resource. However, it does not explain what a tree hold is or how it differs from related hold operations (e.g., releasing a hold). The minimal phrasing is adequate but lacks distinguishing context.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like pc_post_issues_by_id_tree_holds_by_hold_id_release. Authorization class is mentioned but no explicit when/when-not advice.

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