It Send Esito Committente

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses that the action is irreversible and requires confirmation, and it warns that the XML must conform to a named schema. This gives an agent the key safety and format behaviors beyond the raw schema.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler: the first states the action and values, the second adds the schema constraint and confirmation requirement. It earns every word and is easy to parse.

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 high-stakes irreversible tool with five parameters and no annotation or per-parameter schema descriptions, the description does not fully explain all required inputs. It covers the core operation, the XML schema, and irreversibility, but an agent is still under-specified on several parameters and on the operational context with sibling 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate, but it only meaningfully explains the esito values (EC01/EC02) and the esito_xml schema. It does not clarify the semantics or expected format of identificativo_sdi, nome_file, or how to obtain/use confirmation_token.

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 opens with a concrete verb and resource: 'Send an acceptance (EC01) or rejection (EC02) notification to SDI'. Adding 'for a received invoice' clarifies the scope and distinguishes this from tools like it__submit_to_sdi, which send invoices rather than esiti.

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 scopes usage to received invoices and flags the prerequisite of confirmation plus irreversibility. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance, but the context is clear.

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