Holded CRM

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It does not mention destructive actions (delete_funnel, delete_lead, delete_task), the need for confirm on gated actions, pagination via cursor/limit, or any side effects. It only hints at required parameters for a few actions (stage_id, due_date, task_id). This is insufficient for an agent to safely invoke these actions.

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 extremely concise, a single sentence, which is efficient. It front-loads the domain ('Funnels and leads') before listing actions. However, it is a flat list without grouping or hierarchy, and it omits important contextual details that would make it more useful. It earns a middle score for being brief but not optimally structured.

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?

This tool has 17 actions, no output schema, and no annotations. The description merely lists actions without explaining their behavior, prerequisites, error handling, or return values. It does not mention confirm, pagination, or the data contract. For a complex multi-action tool, this is severely incomplete and leaves the agent guessing about how to call most actions correctly.

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 schema leaves task_id, due_date, and stage_id without descriptions (coverage 56%). The description partially compensates by noting these parameters are required for specific actions (move_stage, update_dates, delete_task), adding meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not explain the data payload structure or other parameters, so it only marginally improves clarity.

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 tool's domain as 'Funnels and leads' and enumerates the specific actions it supports. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like contacts or sales, and the action names themselves are self-explanatory verbs on resources. It avoids tautology and gives a concrete idea of what the tool does, though it lacks a more formal 'verb+resource' structure.

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 the many sibling Holded tools (contacts, sales, etc.). The description implies it's for CRM funnel/lead management but doesn't state when it should be chosen or when an alternative is more appropriate. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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