It Archive Invoice

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and largely meets it: it reveals the operation persists a document, computes a SHA-256 hash, adds a timestamp and retention metadata under AgID circolare 65/2014, and returns archive metadata. It stops short of edge behaviors like re-archiving an existing document_id or failure handling, but the core write and safety profile is honestly disclosed.

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 sentences with no filler: purpose first, then storage behavior, then return value. Every sentence adds distinct information, and the legal reference (AgID circolare 65/2014) earns its place as meaningful context rather than boilerplate.

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?

The output schema covers the return shape, and the description already previews document_id and retention_until, so return handling is addressed. What's missing is the pipeline position — a clear prerequisite that the invoice must be XAdES/CAdES-signed before archiving — and any statement on idempotency or overwrite behavior for document_id, which matters for a persistence tool in a compliance workflow.

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 0%, so the description needed to compensate, but it only mentions `document_id` (as return metadata) and adds `retention_until` (which is not in the schema at all). The required `document_base64`, `format_id`, and `signer_id` are left unexplained, and describing document_id as returned when the schema lists it as an input with default '' creates real ambiguity.

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 ('Archive') and resource ('signed invoice') plus the regulatory purpose (conservazione sostitutiva, AgID circolare 65/2014). The storage behavior ('Stores the document with SHA-256 hash, timestamp...') clearly distinguishes this from the sibling retrieval and verification tools (it__retrieve_archived_invoice, it__verify_archive_integrity, it__list_archived_invoices).

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 phrase 'Archive a signed invoice' implies the workflow position — the invoice must already be signed, so it should follow it__sign_fattura_xades or it__sign_fattura_cades — and 'for conservazione sostitutiva' signals the regulatory context. However, it never names alternatives or states exclusions, so an agent must infer when to use this versus the retrieve/verify/list archive siblings or it__build_pacchetto_versamento.

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