register_pending_received_documents

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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=true; the description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the dry-run default acts as a safety gate, installments always cover the gross total, and under the forfettario regime purchases have no tax effect but can still be archived. It still doesn't describe the created-expense response shape, but the workflow disclosure is strong.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the dry-run rule, then the tax caveat. Nothing is repeated from the schema verbatim and no sentence is 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 12-parameter, no-output-schema, destructive mutation tool, the description covers purpose, safety workflow, and domain caveats well. A brief note on what the run returns or on prerequisites for linking pending documents would close the remaining gap.

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 already 92%, so the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds meaning for dry_run (preview vs. execute) and paid (marks installments settled) and notes that installments cover the gross amount. The remaining relationship between all/ids/source is left to the schema.

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 precise verb+resource: registering pending passive invoices as received documents (expenses), linked via pending_id. It also states the concrete benefit (Fatture in Cloud preserves XML and attachments), which distinguishes this conversion path from create_received_document or list_pending_received_documents.

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?

It gives explicit operational guidance: dry_run is TRUE by default, preview first, then re-run with dry_run=false, and paid=true marks installments as paid. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over create_received_document for invoices with no pending record, so it falls short of naming alternatives by name.

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