es__generate_sii_correction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully indicates that the tool generates a record rather than submitting it, and adds the linking behavior via IDFactura. However, it does not disclose whether the record is validated, persisted, or expected to be submitted later, which 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 two short sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a key referencing detail. Every sentence earns its place.

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 a complete input schema and output schema, the description is structurally adequate for invocation. But it misses workflow context: it does not tell the agent whether the generated correction record must subsequently be submitted via submit_sii_batch, nor does it clarify when to choose this over sibling tools. These are meaningful gaps for an agent operating among many related SII tools.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that the original invoice should be referenced via IDFactura, which clarifies how to populate the original_invoice object. It also reinforces that a cancellation (A4) omits corrected_invoice, matching the schema's own guidance.

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 action ('generates an SII modification record A1 or cancellation A4') and identifies the resource ('references the original invoice via IDFactura'). It differentiates the tool from ordinary SII generation by emphasizing correction and cancellation, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 19 sibling tools, the description does not say 'use this for corrections, use build_sii_invoice_record for originals, or submit via submit_sii_batch.' The intended usage is only implied by the name and brief description.

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