Bulk Send Gestoria Template

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

The description discloses key behaviors beyond annotations: triggers per-client notification handler, honours opt-out flag, uses periodOverrides for template variables, returns per-client outcome with success count/failures/duration, and trust area requirement. This provides rich behavioral context that annotations (only readOnlyHint=false, etc.) do not cover.

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 bilingual (English/Spanish), which doubles its length but is necessary for the audience. It front-loads the core action and then adds extra details in a logical order. Every sentence adds value: bulk limit, notification, opt-out, periodOverrides, output, trust, example. No fluff, though bilingual repetition slightly reduces conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (bulk send with overrides, notifications, opt-out, trust area), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, usage context, behavioral details, parameter semantics with example, and output summary. Since an output schema exists, the description's mention of 'per-client outcome with success count, failures, and total duration' is sufficient.

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 input schema has 100% parameter coverage with descriptions. The description adds value by providing a concrete example (templateId='tpl_iva_q', clientWorkspaceIds=['ws_a','ws_b','ws_c'], periodOverrides={quarter:3, year:2026}) that clarifies usage, especially for the nested periodOverrides object. This exceeds the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 it sends the same document request template to up to 500 client workspaces. It specifies the verb 'Send', the resource 'document request template', and the scope 'up to 500 client workspaces'. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'gestoria_message_send' (presumably single message) and 'gestoria_template_create' (template creation).

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 explains that each request triggers notifications, respects opt-out, uses periodOverrides, and requires recipients to have accountant access (RGPD). It provides context for when to use this tool (bulk sending) but does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use it. The sibling 'gestoria_message_send' is implied as an alternative for single sends.

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