es__build_sii_invoice_record

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes building an XML record but does not mention side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the output is (e.g., returns the XML string or validates it). The lack of output schema exacerbates this gap.

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 two sentences long and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word serves a purpose: format, technical reference, and supported types. 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?

Given the complexity of SII XML building and the many sibling tools, the description covers the essential details: format, guide version, and communication types. However, it lacks information on the return value or any post-processing steps, which would enhance completeness.

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 all parameters have descriptions. The description adds context by mentioning the SII guide and communication types, which aligns with the enum. However, it does not clarify the structure of the 'invoice' object beyond 'Datos de la factura', so the added value is marginal.

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 clearly states the tool builds an XML AEAT SII record in SOAP format, specifying the technical guide version (v3.0) and supported communication types (A0, A1, A4). It differentiates from sibling tools that generate other XML formats like Facturae or TicketBAI.

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 usage for building SII records but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., generate_facturae_xml for Facturae format). No when-not-to-use or alternative scenarios are mentioned.

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