transform_document

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about what the call actually creates, whether the original is mutated (keep_copy defaults true but is only explained in the schema), what dry_run does in practice, whether the operation is reversible, or what permissions/company scoping apply. "Collegamento nativo" hints at a link between the two documents but is never clarified.

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?

One dense, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the conversion list is the highest-value information and appears immediately. It reads slightly as a run-on example list rather than structured guidance, but nothing is wasted.

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?

This is a mutating, 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description is the only behavioral documentation available. It covers purpose and valid conversions but leaves an agent unable to predict side effects, return payload, dry_run semantics, or idempotency — a substantial gap for a document-creating operation.

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 43%, below the 50% threshold, so the description must compensate, and it does so only for new_type by constraining it to the listed conversion pairs. The required id, plus date, dry_run and the enum's other members, receive no meaning from the description at all.

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 names a specific verb ("Trasforma") and resource ("documento") and then enumerates the exact supported conversions (proforma → fattura, preventivo → ordine/fattura, ordine → DDT/fattura, DDT → fattura). This makes it easily distinguishable from siblings such as duplicate_document or create_issued_document, which an agent could otherwise confuse it with.

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 conversion chain is the only place the valid source→target pairs are stated; the schema merely offers an 11-value enum for new_type with no restriction, so the description supplies real selection guidance. It never names alternative siblings (duplicate_document, create_issued_document) or states when not to use it, which keeps it below a 5.

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