create_credit_note

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it does substantial work: it discloses that dry_run is TRUE by default, that the result is only a preview with totals, that nothing is transmitted to SdI until send_einvoice is called, and that the note must be bound to the original invoice. It does not cover permissions, what happens if the invoice was never sent, or whether an existing credit note blocks creation.

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 sentences, each carrying distinct load: purpose and linkage rule, the exclusivity claim, then the dry-run/send workflow. The most decision-critical fact (staged by default, nothing sent) is placed last but not buried, and there is no filler.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the essentials an agent needs: the reference requirement, the total/partial choice, and the two-step dry-run-then-send flow. Gaps remain around error conditions and permissions, but the core decision path is complete.

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 71%, and the schema already documents date defaulting, amount meaning partial vs total, company_id defaults, and items_list as an alternative to amount. The description adds real meaning only for dry_run, whose schema entry is bare, explaining the preview-versus-send semantics. That is a useful increment but it does not meaningfully clarify the remaining 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Crea la nota di credito di una fattura'), the two supported scopes (totale o parziale), and the domain constraint that it must reference the original invoice number and date for SdI. It also distinguishes itself from everything in the sibling list by declaring it is 'l'unico modo per correggere una fattura elettronica già inviata'.

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?

Gives clear triggering context (correcting an already-sent electronic invoice) and an explicit follow-up route ('usa poi send_einvoice') for the default dry_run path. It does not contrast against adjacent siblings such as duplicate_document, transform_document, or delete_issued_document, so when-not-to-use is left implicit.

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