Save Account Setup Configuration

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

Beyond the annotations (which only indicate non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds rich behavioral context: uniqueness requirement with 422 error, the meaning of sending 0 (stores null), the non-writing behavior after wizard completion (applied_changes=false), permanent locking of Peppol fields, and retry safety after SdI failure. This is value-added disclosure.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and uses clear bullet points for integration rules and key behaviors. It is longer than a simple two-sentence description, but this is justified by the tool's complexity. Minor inefficiency: the 'Key behaviours' list could be split further, but substance outweighs length.

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 tool has 18 nested sub-parameters and no output schema, yet the description covers the critical side effects (uniqueness, wizard completion guard, Peppol locking, SdI failure retry) and even hints at response fields (applied_changes, integration_state). It stops short of describing the full response structure or all error cases, but for a save action it is largely complete.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by explaining the conditional logic between integration toggle fields (mutual exclusion, required peppol_* fields when active_peppol_integration=1) and the meaning of 0 for toggles, which is not evident from individual schema descriptions.

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 specific verb+resource ('Save the account setup configuration') and clearly states its role as step 5 of 5 in the onboarding sequence. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pop_onboarding_get_account_setup by focusing on the write/update action.

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 explicit integration rules (SdI vs Peppol, mutual exclusion, basic variant exclusion) and notes when it is safe/appropriate to call again (wizard incomplete, retry after SdI failure). It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the step positioning and integration constraints implicitly guide selection away from read-only siblings.

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