e-Fatura Taslağı Oluştur

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

With no annotations, the description provides key behavioral details: automatic calculation of amounts/discounts/taxes, update capability via uuid+belgeNumarasi, and the draft status (no fiscal value until signed). This covers important traits beyond the schema.

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 concise (3 sentences) and front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence adds value without 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 the tool has 38 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description lacks crucial details: prerequisites (e.g., login status), return value/format, and error handling. The agent may not know what to expect after invocation.

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 only 34%, and the description does not compensate by explaining individual parameters beyond the update pair (uuid and belgeNumarasi). Required parameters like vknTckn and malHizmetListe are not elaborated, leaving their semantics unexplained.

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?

Description clearly states it creates an e-Invoice draft in the GIB e-Arşiv portal, listing the supported invoice types (Sales, Return, Withholding, Exemption, Special Base). It distinguishes from sibling creation tools (e.g., gib_create_producer_receipt) by specifying the invoice context.

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 implies when to use the tool (for e-Invoice draft creation) and mentions the update use case. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer from sibling names.

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