create_client

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the domain constraint that data must follow the Fatture in Cloud API v2 schema and the e-invoicing field requirements, but says nothing about permissions, side effects, whether creation is idempotent, or what happens on validation failure.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the schema reference before the conditional e-invoicing requirements. No filler or redundancy.

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 create tool with a single opaque nested payload and no output schema, the description covers the essential call-time knowledge. It leaves the response shape unstated, which is a minor gap for an agent that likely needs the new client's id.

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 `data` parameter is an opaque object with additionalProperties and no keys documented in the schema, yet the description points to the external API v2 schema and enumerates the keys required for e-invoicing, which materially fills a real gap. company_id is already documented in the schema, so that half needs no compensation.

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 opens with a concrete verb+resource ("Crea un cliente"), which is unambiguous and easily separated from siblings such as create_supplier or create_product. It does not explicitly name a sibling to contrast with, but the resource noun makes disambiguation trivial.

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?

Usage is only implied: it tells the agent what fields are needed for electronic invoicing (vat_number or tax_code, address_*, ei_code or certified_email), which is a useful precondition, but there is no guidance on when to use this versus update_client, list_clients, or client_from_vat, nor on duplicate-handling.

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