Holded sales documents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses one important behavioral trait: 'Amounts in responses are strings with a comma decimal separator.' It also hints at parameter requirements ('pdf (needs output_path)', 'attach (file_path)') and type-specific actions. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., delete is permanent, send emails), prerequisites, or the confirm gate, leaving significant gaps.

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 dense sentence listing types and actions. It is compact but not well-structured; the information is front-loaded but could be presented as a list for better readability. It's not overly verbose, but the lack of structure reduces clarity.

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 is a complex tool with 21 parameters, 22 actions, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides a high-level list but omits crucial usage context: how to use actions together, required fields for create/update, pagination, the confirm gate, and typical workflows. It fails to give an agent enough to call it correctly without further exploration.

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 coverage is 62%, so the description must compensate. It adds some meaning by linking actions to parameters (e.g., 'pdf (needs output_path)', 'attach (file_path)', 'find_by_number (invoices)' implying document_number). However, many parameters (contact_id, pipeline_id, due_date_start/end, etc.) are left without explanation, and the description does not cover all 21 parameters.

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: 'Sales documents by `type`' and lists all supported document types and actions. It distinguishes from siblings like holded_purchases by explicitly naming the sales domain, though it doesn't explicitly say 'use this for sales, not purchases'. The purpose is clear and specific.

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 implies usage through its domain focus and action list, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like holded_purchases. It provides some per-action type restrictions (e.g., 'find_by_number (invoices)'), but no general when/when-not guidance or exclusions.

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