Holded contacts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add some useful detail about exact-match filters and substring search, but it omits critical behavioral facts such as side effects of delete/bulk actions, the confirm-based gating behavior where the first call sends nothing, pagination via cursor, and attachment file upload 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 compact and front-loads the resource scope before listing actions. The long action enumeration is dense but not padded, and every clause carries information about what the tool can do.

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 tool with 16 actions, 14 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is underspecified. It does not explain when confirm is required, what bulk_archive or portal_link do, how responses are structured, or how pagination works, leaving an agent without enough context to safely invoke destructive or gated operations.

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?

The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema by stating that email, code, phone, mobile, and custom_id are exact-match filters and that name is a substring search. However, with 14 parameters and only 64% schema description coverage, many parameters such as data, ids, file_path, and cursor receive no additional context in the description.

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 clearly identifies the resource scope ('Customers and suppliers') and enumerates the full set of operations available, from list/search to groups and attachments. It distinguishes the tool from sibling modules by domain, though it lacks a concise verb phrase because it is a multi-action tool.

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 is provided on when this tool should be used instead of sibling tools such as holded_crm, holded_sales, or holded_purchases. The only usage-related information is internal to this tool: list filters are exact matches while search performs substring on name, which does not help an agent choose between tools.

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