Modify an existing Holded service by service ID to change its name, price, tax, SKU, or description through the API.
Update an existing service (Holded API v2)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sku | No | Service SKU | |
| tax | No | Tax percentage | |
| name | No | Service name | |
| price | No | Service price | |
| serviceId | Yes | Service ID to update | |
| description | No | Service description |
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, yet it says nothing beyond "update." Critically, it does not state whether this is a partial patch (only serviceId is required, with all five other fields optional) or a full replacement of the service record, nor what permissions or side effects apply.
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 compact sentence with the operation front-loaded and no wasted prose. The parenthetical "(Holded API v2)" adds minimal value but is not disruptive; the brevity is close to under-specification rather than verbosity.
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 six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits the essentials: partial-vs-full update semantics, what is returned, and error conditions. Only the schema fields carry any detail.
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%, so every field including serviceId is already documented inline. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline-3 case for a fully documented schema.
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 service") that clearly identifies the operation. Sibling naming (create_service, get_service, delete_service, list_services) makes the distinction obvious, but the description itself does not name or differentiate any alternative.
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 create_service or update_product, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.