create_invoicing_forecast

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does add real behavioral detail: the operation is a write, targets API v2, and `data` is passed through verbatim with no validation or transformation. It omits whether the created record is returned, what errors look like, and any permission or irreversibility notes.

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?

Two short sentences with the operation type and destination front-loaded and no filler. The external link is compressed rather than inlined as a long URL block or prose.

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?

With a single required nested-object parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, an agent still lacks the payload fields and the success response shape. The description acknowledges this by deferring to the Holded API reference, which is honest but requires an outbound lookup before the tool can be called correctly.

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 100% and the schema already states "Forecast payload, sent verbatim as body," which the description largely repeats. The added value is the external API reference link, which is the only route to the nested object's field semantics since the schema defines no properties.

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 and resource ("creates an invoicing forecast in Holded cashflow") and flags it as a WRITE, which cleanly separates it from get_invoicing_forecast, list_invoicing_forecasts, update_invoicing_forecast and delete_invoicing_forecast. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is implicit in the name.

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 "WRITE:" prefix implies when the tool applies (creating new vs. updating existing forecasts) and the docs pointer tells the agent where to resolve the payload shape, but there is no explicit statement of prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or a named alternative such as update_invoicing_forecast.

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