accelo_create_holiday

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Create' implies a mutation, but the description never states permission requirements, what the response returns, or whether duplicate/overlapping holidays are allowed. The '(Beta)' note and mutual-exclusivity rule are the only behavioral signals.

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?

Purpose and the mutual-exclusivity constraint are front-loaded, and the Args list is compact. Minor redundancy in restating parameter names, but each line adds a format or default not present in the schema.

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?

There is no output schema, and annotations are absent, so a complete description should cover at least the mutation's return shape and permission expectations. It fully covers inputs and one key constraint but leaves the post-call behavior unspecified for a write tool.

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 0%, so the Args block does real work: it documents all six parameters including formats ('unix timestamp'), default behavior ('staff_id defaults to current user'), and the mutual-exclusivity of date_end vs duration_seconds. It meaningfully compensates for the undocumented schema.

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 ('Create a new holiday') that clearly separates it from the get/list/update/delete holiday siblings. The '(Beta)' tag adds mild status context but the definition doesn't explicitly position it against alternatives.

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 description gives no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or conditions under which a caller would create a holiday rather than update one. Only the param-level mutual exclusivity of date_end/duration_seconds is offered as a constraint, which is not usage routing.

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