it__send_esito_committente

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It meaningfully discloses that the operation is irreversible and requires confirmation, plus it specifies the required XML schema conformance. This is useful beyond the raw schema and gives an agent important safety-relevant context.

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 short, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no filler. Each sentence earns its place: the first states what the tool does, the second adds the schema constraint and the irreversible nature of the operation.

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 description captures the core action, the allowed outcome values, and the critical irreversibility, but it omits details needed for full confidence: what identificativo_sdi refers to, how to construct the XML file, and how the confirmation mechanism works. An output schema exists, which reduces the need to explain return values, but the input-side guidance is still incomplete.

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?

The schema provides no property descriptions, so the description must compensate. It adds value by explaining the valid esito values (EC01/EC02) and by linking esito_xml to a specific XML schema. However, it does not explain identificativo_sdi, nome_file, or the confirmation_token relationship, leaving significant parameter 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 uses a specific verb ('Send') and identifies the exact resource and purpose: sending an acceptance or rejection notification to SDI for a received invoice. It also names the specific codes EC01/EC02, which makes the tool's function concrete and distinguishes it from other SDI-related siblings.

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 gives context by saying this is for a received invoice, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like it__submit_to_sdi or it__check_sdi_status. No when-not-to-use guidance or sibling comparisons are provided, so the usage context is clear but incomplete.

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