beel_update_verifactu_configuration

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

The description discloses critical behavioral details: full replacement semantics, server-side resolution, the requirement that apply_by_default cannot be true when enabled is false, side effects of setting enabled to false (stops sending invoices, starts deregistration), and that it does not deactivate the company. This goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true) and adds significant value.

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?

The description is structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: the replacement semantics, the writable fields, the constraint, side effects, and the endpoint. The fiscal guardrails warning is clearly separated and the pointer to docs avoids redundancy. Despite being long, it is efficient and well-organized.

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 configuration update tool, the description covers everything an agent needs: what is replaced, what is required, what cannot be set, the side effects, the endpoint, and pointers to additional documentation. It also explains the error condition (422 APPLY_BY_DEFAULT_REQUIRES_ENABLED). Even without an output schema, the behavior of the response is implied (server-side resolved). Complete for the complexity.

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?

Although the input schema already describes the parameters (enabled, apply_by_default, and company_id), the description enriches them by explaining the full-replacement behavior, that both are required with no default, and the dependency between them. It also clarifies the meaning of company_id as the sole source of context, including security nuance (NIFs in other accounts are never disclosed).

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 begins with 'Replaces the VeriFactu configuration of a company (NIF)' — a specific verb and resource. It clearly states it is a full replacement, not a partial merge, and mentions the endpoint. This distinguishes it from the read operation (beel_get_verifactu_configuration) and other update tools like beel_update_tax_configuration.

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 description explicitly explains when to use the tool (updating VeriFactu configuration) and when not to (it does not deactivate the company; releasing the NIF is a separate DELETE action). It provides fiscal guardrails and points to beel_docs_search for exhaustive rules, giving clear context and alternatives.

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