Müşteri Fatura Dosyası Gönder (sellerInvoiceFile)

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

With no annotations, the description adds substantial behavioral context: file type/size restrictions, future date prohibition, conditional mandatory fields, and specific error messages. Missing details on response format or rate limits, but covers key operational constraints.

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?

Four sentences; efficiently conveys action, constraints, and common errors. Front-loaded with primary purpose. Could trim some redundancy but overall well-structured.

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 file upload tool with no output schema, the description covers core functionality, constraints, conditional requirements, and frequent errors. Lacks response details but sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 100% with good descriptions. Description adds context about when invoiceNumber/invoiceDateTime are required (micro export) and error conditions. Extra value is moderate; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states the tool uploads an invoice file (pdf, jpeg, png) for an order. Specifies file types and size limit. Does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool trendyol_send_invoice_link, but the action of uploading vs sending a link is implied.

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 constraints (file size, future date not allowed) and mandatory fields for micro export/cross-border orders. Lists common errors but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus sending an invoice link or other alternatives.

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