es__generate_sii_correction

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool 'generates' a record, without clarifying whether it submits to AEAT, performs validation, requires authentication, or has side effects. The behavior is ambiguous beyond the name.

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 a single, concise sentence that communicates the core function without waste. It front-loads the action and resource, achieving maximum efficiency.

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 tool's complexity (nested objects, enums, optional parameter, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the relationship between original_invoice and corrected_invoice for modifications vs cancellations, or what IDFactura refers to. The agent would need additional documentation to use the tool 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 description coverage is 50% (only original_invoice and corrected_invoice have descriptions). The description adds no parameter-level detail, failing to explain the nested object structure, the difference between A1 and A4, or the record_type enum. The agent lacks essential context for proper parameter usage.

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 generates an SII modification (A1) or cancellation (A4) record referencing the original invoice via IDFactura. The verb 'generates' is specific, and the resource is well-defined. It distinguishes from sibling tools that handle other SII operations or different invoice formats.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when to choose A1 vs A4, or which record_type (issued/received) applies. No reference to prerequisites or when-not-to-use, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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