mark_paid

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

Annotations only supply idempotentHint=true, so the description must carry most of the burden. It usefully discloses bulk scope ('tutte le rate aperte' across multiple documents) and the fallback chain for assigning a payment account, but says nothing about permissions, what happens when a document has no open installments, or reversibility (mark_unpaid exists but isn't referenced).

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 sentences, front-loaded with the scope-changing action and followed by the account-resolution rule; nothing is redundant. Minor looseness: 'conto' and 'payment_account_id' are used interchangeably, which could read as two distinct concepts.

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 mutation tool with a single weak annotation and no output schema, the definition covers the essential mechanics but omits what is returned and the outcome when no open installments exist. An agent could call it correctly, but cannot predict the result or error behavior.

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 description coverage is 75%, and the description adds real meaning on top of it: 'ids' is revealed to be document identifiers whose open installments are affected, and the fallback rule for the account parameter is spelled out beyond the schema's brief 'Conto di saldo' note. It does not clarify paid_date beyond the schema default.

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: 'Segna come saldate tutte le rate aperte di uno o più documenti' makes clear it is a bulk state change over open installments of the given documents. The sibling mark_unpaid exists but is never named, so differentiation is left to inference rather than stated.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no pointer to alternatives such as mark_unpaid or update_received_document. The only conditional guidance is about account resolution when an installment lacks a payment account, which is operational rather than selection guidance.

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