Deletes a Holded payment by its payment ID via API v2, removing it from the account when it is no longer needed.
Delete a payment (Holded API v2)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| paymentId | Yes | Payment ID to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. It conveys only that the operation is destructive; there is no mention of irreversibility, required permissions, side effects on linked documents/ledger entries, or error behavior for a nonexistent or in-use payment.
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?
A single short sentence with the verb front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification for a destructive operation.
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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should warn about irreversibility and downstream effects (e.g., on documents or ledger entries). Those are absent, leaving an agent unable to assess risk before calling it.
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?
With a single required parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents paymentId. The description adds no format, ID-source, or validation detail beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.
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 ("Delete a payment") with API version context, which clearly separates it from siblings like update_payment, get_payment, list_payments, and delete_document. It does not explicitly name any sibling as an alternative, but the distinction is unambiguous from the verb.
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 versus update_payment, delete_document, or other payment operations, and no preconditions stated (e.g., whether a payment linked to a document can be deleted). The agent must infer everything from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.