es__submit_to_face

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

No annotations are provided, and the description compensates by disclosing authentication requirements (JWS RS256+x5c, required env vars) and the two-phase side-effect behavior (summary vs. real submission). It does not discuss error handling or retries, but the critical human-in-the-loop side effect is explicitly flagged.

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?

Three short paragraphs front-load the action, then add only high-value context: what FACe is, auth prerequisites, and the human-in-the-loop protocol. There is no filler or redundant restatement of schema fields.

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?

For a mutating submission tool with no annotations, it covers prerequisite auth, destination, and the required two-call confirmation workflow. The existence of an output schema covers return-value details; minor omissions like idempotency or retry behavior keep it from a 5.

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 description does not need to restate parameters. It adds value by explaining the confirmation_token lifecycle (omit to receive a token, include it to execute) and by tying authentication to external env vars, which is not visible in the schema.

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 names a specific verb ('Envía'), a specific object ('XML Facturae firmado con XAdES'), and a specific target ('FACe ... API REST B2B de FACe v2'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling generation/validation/status tools; there is no ambiguity about what the tool executes.

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?

It clearly specifies the two-step invocation flow: call without confirmation_token to receive a summary/token, then call with it to execute the real submission. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the workflow gives an agent enough context to follow the required sequence.

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