send_outbound_document

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly false, destructive true, idempotent true), the description adds SignalEDI serialization, async webhook acknowledgment, and the return of document id/status. These behavioral details are useful and not present in annotations.

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 concise sentences with front-loaded purpose, followed by behavioral details and requirements. No wordiness or redundancy.

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?

Given complexity (7 params, nested payload, no output schema), the description covers serialization, delivery, async acknowledgment, scopes, and required flags. It doesn't elaborate on error cases or metadata echo, but the schema covers those, and no output schema exists to explain.

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 100%, so parameters are well documented structurally. The description adds emphasis on confirm and idempotencyKey requirements but doesn't enrich the meaning of partnerId, documentTypeCode, or payload beyond 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 clearly states 'Send an outbound EDI document to a trading partner' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling parsing/validation tools by emphasizing the actual sending and serialization behavior.

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?

Provides clear context with prerequisites: required scopes, confirm:true, and idempotencyKey. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, though no direct sibling conflict exists.

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