Modify an existing expenses account in Holded by updating its name or PGC account code, identified by account ID.
Update an existing expenses account (Holded API v2)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | No | PGC account number (e.g. "62900000"). This is the value surfaced as `accountNum` by list_expenses_accounts — Holded accepts it under the `code` key on create/update. | |
| name | No | Expenses account name | |
| accountId | Yes | Expenses account ID to update |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.7.0Input schema / properties / code / descriptionPrevious value: -"Account code"New value: +"PGC account number (e.g. \"62900000\"). This is the value surfaced as `accountNum` by list_expenses_accounts — Holded accepts it under the `code` key on create/update."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 disclosure burden, and it says almost nothing. It does not state whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared, whether it errors on unknown/invalid codes, whether updates are reversible, or what a success response looks like. The only extra signal is the 'Holded API v2' provenance.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb and resource lead. It is efficient but borders on under-specification for a mutation tool with three parameters.
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 write operation with no annotations, no output schema, and no statement of partial-update behavior or failure modes, the description is too thin. The well-documented schema partially compensates on inputs, but the mutation semantics and return behavior remain entirely undocumented.
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 100%, and the `code` parameter even explains the accountNum-to-code mapping, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description itself adds nothing about required vs optional fields or update semantics, 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: 'Update an existing expenses account'. The word 'existing' implicitly separates it from create_expenses_account, but the description never names the sibling CRUD tools (get/delete/list_expenses_account) to make the routing explicit.
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 create_expenses_account or get_expenses_account, no prerequisites, and no note on whether it is a full replace or a partial patch. The agent must infer everything from the parameter set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.