hold

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavior: automatic holds after a block page or 429, a single probe when the block ends, and that min_interval permanently slows Scout's pace on that host. It still omits scope and side effects — whether lifting affects in-flight requests, whether the hold persists across sessions, and what permissions are needed.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, which is good, but the second sentence is a run-on whose referent ('reason says what was asked and when') is easy to misparse. The three sentences are dense and could be tightened without losing 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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies an unusual amount of operational context (auto-hold triggers, probe behavior, permanent pacing). It is nearly complete, with the main remaining gap being persistence scope and any return/confirmation semantics.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: 'lift' is defined by 'let them back', 'reason' by 'says what was asked and when', and 'min_interval (seconds)' is explained as a permanent pacing change. Only 'host' is left implicit, though it is inferable from 'off a host'.

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 names a specific verb and resource: it keeps agents off a host, or lifts that block ('or let them back'). The hold/lift duality is unambiguous once read, but there is no differentiation from the sibling tools (scout, reach, cache, etc.), which are not referenced at all.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger for the lift path ('when a site blocked you and a person has asked for the block to be lifted') and implies that manual holding is often unnecessary because 'Scout holds a host by itself after a block page or a 429'. That implicit when-not-to-use is valuable, but no alternative tool is ever named.

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