Holded projects

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, but it provides none. It does not mention side effects, permission requirements, pagination behavior, or consequences of actions like delete_project or create_project.

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 single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists actions efficiently. It avoids redundancy and is easy to parse.

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 9 parameters and 16 actions, the description is far too sparse. It lacks guidance on constructing payloads, using pagination (cursor, limit), handling the confirm gate, and typical usage patterns, making it incomplete for an agent to call 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 description adds some parameter context by linking actions to parameters (e.g., 'list_projects (status)', 'list_times (project_id optional)'), but it does not explain most parameters or the data payload structure. With only 56% schema coverage, this partial compensation is insufficient.

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 states the tool's domain as 'Projects, tasks and time tracking' and enumerates all actions, making its purpose unambiguous. This differentiates it from sibling tools like holded_contacts or holded_sales by resource type.

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. The description only lists actions without providing context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the domain alone.

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