add_linea_dettaglio

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format on success and failure. It notes that prezzo_totale must be explicitly provided and not computed, which is a behavioral trait. It does not mention side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits, but for a data-construction tool in a workflow, the level of detail is sufficient. A minor gap is the lack of mention of any validation or modification of input.

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 paragraph that front-loads the purpose, then provides workflow order, parameter-specific rules, and return format. It is reasonably concise given the amount of information. The structure could be improved with bullet points or clearer separation, but it is still effective and readable.

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 9 parameters and the workflow context, the description covers essential points: workflow position, parameter rules, return values, error handling, and references to sibling tools. It does not miss any critical information for an agent to use the tool correctly in the invoice generation pipeline.

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. However, the description adds significant context beyond the schema: it specifies that numero_linea must be sequential starting at 1 and not reused, that prezzo_totale must be provided explicitly (not computed), and that when aliquota_iva is 0.0, natura is required (with a reference to get_natura_codes). These workflow-specific rules enhance the parameter understanding considerably.

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 that the tool builds a single DettaglioLinee (line item) for the FatturaElettronicaBody and positions it as step 7 in the invoice generation workflow. It differentiates from siblings by referencing the specific workflow order and other tools like build_dati_generali, compute_totali, and generate_fattura_xml.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'call once per line item after build_dati_generali()' and instructs to collect results into a list and pass to compute_totali() and generate_fattura_xml(). It also gives specific rules for numero_linea (sequential, not reused), prezzo_totale (explicit, negative for credit notes), and the relation between aliquota_iva and natura, including a reference to get_natura_codes(). It also mentions ritenuta='SI' and the DatiRitenuta block.

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