schedule_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that creation is a copy-and-renumber operation, distinguishes the two action modes by whether the SdI submission happens automatically, and reveals the non-obvious dependency on an external runner (`run-due` / schedule_run_due) for the schedule to execute. It doesn't say what is returned or what happens if the source document is deleted or the day doesn't exist in a month.

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 front-loaded sentences: what it does, then the action trade-off with a recommendation, then how it is executed. Dense but each clause carries information; the execution sentence could have been tightened but is not waste.

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 an 11-parameter creation tool with nested objects, no annotations and no output schema, the description omits what is returned (schedule id, next run date) and whether anything is created immediately. The operational picture is otherwise solid, so it is adequate but not 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 73%, and the description adds meaning the schema lacks: the semantics of `source_document_id` as a template that gets copied and renumbered, and the behavioral difference between the two `action` values, which the enum alone does not explain. Remaining gaps (overrides placeholders, email payload) are already documented in 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Crea una fattura ricorrente") and explains the core mechanism: at each due date it copies `source_document_id` with today's date and the next number. That is enough to separate it from the sibling schedule_* tools, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with schedule_update or schedule_run_now.

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 a concrete decision rule between the two action values: 'create' leaves the invoice to be checked and sent (recommended when the amount varies), while 'create_and_send_sdi' verifies and sends to SdI. It also names the execution paths (`run-due` CLI or schedule_run_due), which clarifies when the schedule actually fires. It does not cover when to choose this tool over schedule_update/schedule_run_now.

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