Preserve / Archive SdI Document

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds context beyond annotations by explaining the legal preservation requirement and the status precondition. It does not explicitly state side effects (e.g., document becoming immutable), but given the annotations cover safety traits, the added context is sufficient.

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 well-structured: purpose, legal context, IMPORTANT usage rule, requirements, and args. It is slightly redundant ('Archive an SdI document...' and 'This tool archives a document...'), but each section serves a purpose and is front-loaded with the primary action.

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 tool has no output schema, the description provides enough context to call it correctly: when to call, prerequisites, and the single key parameter. It does not describe return values, but the action is simple and the annotations fill in the rest. This is complete for a straightforward archival tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the uuid parameter but adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. The environment parameter is not mentioned in the description, but it is adequately described in the schema.

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 and resource: 'Archive an SdI document in long-term digital storage.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like pop_get_sdi_document or pop_verify_sdi_document, which are read/check operations. The addition of 'conservazione sostitutiva' and the legal context further clarify scope.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: only after pop_get_invoice_status returns RC or MC, and explicitly lists statuses to avoid (NS, EC, SE, DT). Also gives a prerequisite (Basic+ plan with active SdI). This is model guidance with both inclusion and exclusion criteria.

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