accelo_update_holiday

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. Beyond the '(Beta)' marker, it says nothing about whether the update is partial or full-replace, whether omitted fields are preserved, what auth is required, or any side effects of changing dates/staff assignment.

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 single leading sentence is front-loaded and the Args block is an efficient, scannable enumeration. There is minimal waste, though the per-parameter glosses are so terse they border on restating the field names.

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 mutation tool with seven parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description documents the parameter surface adequately but leaves the behavioral contract (partial-update semantics, permissions, field-preservation rules) unaddressed, which is a meaningful gap for a write operation.

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 description must compensate, and it does enumerate all seven parameters. However, most entries are near-tautological ('title: New title'), adding little beyond the property name; only 'fields: Additional fields to return' and the '(required)' note add real meaning.

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 a specific verb and resource (update an existing holiday), which clearly distinguishes it from accelo_create_holiday, accelo_delete_holiday, and accelo_get_holiday by implication. It is clear but does not explicitly name or contrast with those siblings.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus accelo_create_holiday or accelo_get_holiday, and no mention of prerequisites, permissions, or the conditions under which an update should be preferred. Usage must be inferred entirely from the verb.

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