create_payment_account

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it discloses that this is a create operation and points to the Fatture in Cloud API v2 schema for the payload, which is genuinely useful. However, it says nothing about permissions, duplicate handling, defaults applied server-side, or what a successful creation returns.

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 what is created and followed by the payload contract and field list. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information comes first.

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 nested free-form object, no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the entity and the payload vocabulary, which is the core need. It leaves gaps on required fields, the company_id default behavior, and the result of the call, so it is adequate but not fully 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 only 50% and the `data` parameter is a free-form object with no declared properties, so the description is the sole source of field names (name, type, iban, sia, cuc, virtual) and the type enum values (standard/bank). It still omits which fields are mandatory and the types of the remaining fields.

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 un conto di saldo') and enumerates the concrete kinds (banca, cassa, carta), so an agent knows exactly what entity is produced. It does not explicitly contrast with the close siblings update_payment_account/delete_payment_account/list_payment_accounts, though the create verb makes the distinction reasonably obvious.

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 phrase 'su cui registrare incassi e pagamenti' implies the purpose (accounts that back receipts and payments), which gives implicit when-to-use context. There is no explicit prerequisite, no when-not guidance, and no mention of which sibling to use for modifying an existing account.

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