Call any Holded v2 endpoint

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that responses are returned unvalidated, that destructive operations require a confirm step that sends nothing on the first call, and that this tool bypasses the validation of domain tools. These are critical behavioral traits communicated clearly.

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, delivering the purpose, path rule, confirm mechanism, and usage preference in just two sentences. It is front-loaded with the core concept ('low-level escape hatch') and packs essential details without fluff. Every sentence adds value.

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 low-level tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the most critical operational details: path prefix, confirm requirement, and unvalidated responses. It omits guidance on constructing body and query objects and does not mention authentication or error handling, but these are less essential for an escape hatch given its intended use after domain tools are exhausted.

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 has no descriptions (coverage 0%), so the description must compensate. It clarifies the path parameter (must be relative to base URL and start with '/') and explains the confirm parameter's role for specific paths. However, it does not elaborate on the body, query, or method parameters beyond the schema's enum for method and generic object types for body/query, leaving some ambiguity.

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 purpose as a 'low-level escape hatch for the ~350 v2 operations', specifying the verb (call) and resource (any endpoint). It distinguishes itself from the domain tools by noting that those validate inputs and responses, making the purpose unambiguous and differentiating from siblings.

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?

It explicitly advises to prefer domain tools when possible, establishing when not to use this tool. It also provides concrete usage conditions: the path must start with '/', and certain methods and path keywords require 'confirm: true', with the first call returning the request without sending. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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