create_archive_document

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only says the tool creates something. It does not state required permissions, whether the operation is reversible, how errors or duplicate archival numbers are handled, or what the response contains. The single mitigating fact is the pointer to the Fatture in Cloud API v2 schema, which at least tells the agent where the payload contract lives.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, and the core operation is stated first. The brevity is efficient rather than padded, though for a tool with an opaque nested payload it borders on under-specification.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested free-form `data` object whose structure is never described. An agent reading only this definition cannot construct a valid payload or predict the result; it is fully dependent on external API documentation.

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 50%: company_id is documented in the schema, but `data` is an untyped free-form object with additionalProperties {} and no description. The description does add real meaning there by naming the authoritative shape (Fatture in Cloud API v2 schema), which is more than the schema offers, though it defers rather than explains.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Crea un documento d'archivio"), which an agent can separate from update_archive_document / delete_archive_document / list_archive_documents by name alone. It stops short of distinguishing it from other creators such as create_received_document or upload_attachment, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiated.

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 choose this over create_received_document, create_issued_document, or upload_attachment, nor any stated prerequisites or preconditions. The agent must infer the routing decision entirely from the tool name.

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