update_invoicing_forecast

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the key trait that `data` is forwarded verbatim with no validation or field mapping, and it flags the API version. It omits whether the update is partial-merge or replace, what happens to unspecified fields, auth requirements, and error/return behavior.

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, mutation intent front-loaded as "WRITE:", and the doc link placed last. Efficient, though the URL and parenthetical section hint make the second sentence heavier than it needs to be.

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 an unannotated write tool with an unconstrained nested object and no output schema, the description does the minimum plus a docs pointer. It leaves an agent unsure about partial-update semantics, required fields inside `data`, and what the call returns.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, and the schema text itself says "sent verbatim as body." The description largely repeats that and adds only a pointer to the external API reference for the shape of the nested `data` object, which is useful but minimal.

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 plus resource ("updates an invoicing forecast") scoped to Holded cashflow API v2, which is enough to separate it from list/create/delete_invoicing_forecast siblings. It never explicitly names those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 mutating an existing record rather than creating one, but there is no statement of when to use this versus create_invoicing_forecast or delete_invoicing_forecast, and no prerequisites (permissions, required forecast state) are given.

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