it__sign_fattura_xades

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It discloses fallback behavior, extension of output, certificate requirement, and that it requires confirmation because it is irreversible. This is reasonably rich behavioral context for a signing tool.

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, each carrying a distinct piece: what the signature is, input requirements/infrastructure, and safety confirmation. Front-loaded essential info and no redundancy.

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?

Has an output schema (not shown but present), and the description already warns about irreversibility/confirmation, fallback behavior, and certificate requirement. It could mention whether xml is XML content or a file path, but the presence of output schema reduces the need for return-value documentation.

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 must compensate. It mentions PKCS#12 certificate, which maps to cert_path/cert_password, and the required confirmation maps to confirmation_token. It doesn't explain the xml parameter or the exact format, but the parameter names are self-explanatory. It adds semantic support for coverage zero by giving the meaning of the certificate and confirmation, but leaves xml's expected format (e.g., base64? path?) undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb ('Apply'), resource ('XAdES-BES enveloped XML signature to a FatturaPA XML document'), and a distinguishing detail ('.xml extension retained'). It is clearly distinct from sibling it__sign_fattura_cades.

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?

Implied context: used to sign FatturaPA XML before submission. Does not explicitly say when to prefer it__sign_fattura_cades over this one, but the format (XAdES-BES) is stated. It gives usage conditions: requires PKCS#12 certificate and confirmation. It does not name an alternative, but among the siblings only cades is a direct alternative, and the description identifies the signature format that selects this tool.

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