Holded purchase documents

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds only one useful trait: amounts in responses use comma decimals. It does not mention side effects of actions like delete, approve, or send, the confirm-gating mechanism, pagination behavior, or any permission requirements.

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 every phrase adds information: types, action-to-parameter hints, and a response format note. It is a single dense run-on sentence, which slightly hurts scannability, but there is minimal waste.

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 18 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is skeletal. It fails to explain the data payload contract, gated actions, status filters, pagination semantics, or what responses look like beyond the amount format. An agent would still face significant uncertainty when invoking most actions.

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 only 39%, so the description should compensate. It does associate output_path with the pdf action and file_path with attach, and clarifies type values, but it leaves many parameters (contact_id, pipeline_id, due_date_start/end, approval_status, data, status) without additional meaning or context.

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 names the specific resource ('Purchase documents') and enumerates the exact document types it covers, differentiating it from sibling Holded tools like holded_sales or holded_contacts. It also lists the available actions, making the tool's scope and responsibility unambiguous.

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?

The description lists actions and types but gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives, nor does it explain which action to choose for a given task. There are no exclusions, conditions, or comparisons to sibling tools, so an agent gets no routing help beyond the resource name.

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