Müşteri Fatura Bağlantısı Gönder (sendInvoiceLink)

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

With no annotations, description fully covers behavioral traits: how the link is used by Trendyol, legal requirement for 8-year accessibility, conditional parameter mandatory status, error causes, and recovery via delete tool. No contradictions.

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?

Description is detailed but every sentence adds unique context. Front-loaded with core purpose, then conditions, legal, errors, recovery. Could be slightly more concise, but no 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?

Covers all critical aspects: purpose, usage conditions, legal requirements, parameter dependencies, error handling, and recovery in case of mistakes. No output schema but error info compensates. Complete for a mutation tool with 4 parameters.

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?

Despite 100% schema coverage, description adds significant value: explains which parameters are mandatory for which package types, legal context for invoiceLink, and pattern backgrounds. Goes beyond schema descriptions.

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?

Describes specific verb (transmits) and resource (e-archive invoice link) and explains the flow: sends link to Trendyol, they email customer. Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like trendyol_send_invoice_file and trendyol_delete_invoice_link.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (when PDF cannot be sent to encrypted email) and provides alternatives (trendyol_delete_invoice_link). Also includes legal obligation, parameter conditions for specific package types, and error scenarios (HTTP 409) with corrective action.

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