es__build_sii_invoice_record

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states what the tool constructs and the specification it follows, but does not mention whether it validates input, whether it submits anything to AEAT, or whether it requires authentication/signing before use. For a builder tool, the lack of an explicit 'does not submit' statement leaves some ambiguity.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose in the first sentence. The second part adds only high-value context about the SII version and supported communication types. No filler, no repetition of schema details beyond what is useful for orientation.

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?

The description is adequate for a builder tool with a rich output schema, but it omits the crucial relationship to sibling submission tools. An agent could not tell from this description alone that this tool only builds the XML record and does not submit it to AEAT, nor that the resulting record should be used with submit_sii_batch. Given the large sibling family, that contextual link is important.

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 the baseline is 3. The description somewhat redundantly restates record_type ('FacturaExpedida/FacturaRecibida') and communication_type (A0/A1/A4) which the schema already explains, but it does not add any meaningful detail about the invoice object structure or the exact XML fields. It neither improves nor harms parameter clarity.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Construye un registro XML AEAT SII en formato SOAP' (builds an AEAT SII XML record in SOAP format). It immediately distinguishes this from siblings like generate_facturae_xml or generate_verifactu_record by naming the SII domain and the SOAP format, and adds scope details (issued/received, A0/A1/A4).

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?

Usage context is implied through the supported record types and communication modes, which tells an agent that this tool is for building SII invoices rather than for submission or status queries. However, it never explicitly explains when to use this tool instead of siblings such as submit_sii_batch, generate_facturae_xml, or generate_verifactu_record, nor does it name alternatives for exclusion.

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