Holded catalog

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It gives no information about side effects, idempotency, authentication needs, or the confirm gate for gated actions (despite the confirm parameter existing). It also does not mention pagination or cursor 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?

The description is a long list that duplicates the schema enum, making it redundant and poorly structured. It is not front-loaded with a clear purpose, and every sentence is not earning its place since it repeats schema information. The wall-of-text format is not concise or organized.

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 28 actions and 8 parameters, the description is highly insufficient. It does not explain how to compose calls, how to use pagination, or the gated confirm flow. It relies entirely on the schema, but the schema lacks context for many parameters (like the data object), leaving the agent with too many unknowns.

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 75%, so the description only needs to add marginal value. It mentions specific parameters for some actions (name for list_products, include_archived for list_services, data fields for update_stock), but it does not explain the data object structure or the confirm parameter. It adds a little beyond the schema but not enough to compensate for the coverage gaps.

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?

The description lists the resources (products, services, warehouses, price lists, production orders) and enumerates all actions, but it does not state a single clear purpose like 'Manage catalog entities'. The action list duplicates the schema enum, so it adds little beyond what the schema already provides. It distinguishes from siblings only by domain, not explicitly.

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 alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate. The description is purely a listing with no usage context.

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