send_invoice_xml

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions pre-validation and digital signing but does not explain error handling, consequences of failed validation, idempotency, or required permissions. The description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand side effects or safe usage.

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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the main action. While efficient, it could benefit from slight expansion to cover usage without becoming verbose. Structurally, it is clear and direct.

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 presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description covers the essential purpose and parameter hints. However, it omits details on success/failure outcomes, errors, or prerequisites. For a relatively simple tool, it is adequately complete but not exhaustive.

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 briefly explains the purpose of 'validate' and 'signature' parameters but does not clarify the expected format of 'xml_content' (e.g., XML string, base64). This adds some meaning but leaves a gap for the required parameter.

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 the primary action: sending a FatturaPA XML invoice to SDI. It specifies the type of invoice and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'validate_invoice_xml' which only validates. The verb 'send' and resource 'FatturaPA XML invoice' are specific and unambiguous.

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 guidance on optional parameters (validate and signature) but lacks context on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusion scenarios. No 'when-not' or comparative advice is given, leaving the agent to infer usage without explicit boundaries.

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