dosare_c168_create

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

Annotations only mark it as a non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent closed-world write. The description adds real behavior beyond that: Storno rule enforcement with errors surfaced as 422 with issues, a persistent side effect (reviewed addresses stored in the dosar for next use), and that it advances the dosar's next step. It does not disclose response shape or what happens on retry (relevant given idempotentHint=false).

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 action and its inputs come first, then validation/workflow, then the ANAF business constraint last. Despite the em-dash clause enumerating attachment types, every clause carries operative information — no filler or restatement of the title.

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?

For a 6-parameter mutation with nested input object, no output schema, and only partial schema descriptions, the definition covers inputs, error behavior, side effects, and follow-up tools. The main remaining gap is the return value (e.g. the created declaration id) which, with no output schema, is left entirely to inference.

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 coverage is 50%, and the description compensates by explaining the two undocumented attachment params (fileIds = dosar files by id, attachmentPaths = local files) and by mapping actiune to the required attachment type — scanned contract for a registration, addendum for an amendment, termination document or signed sworn statement for a termination. It does not spell out the actiune enum values themselves or clarify whether both attachment sources can be combined.

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 and resource ("Create the C168 declaration in the dosar") and scopes the source of data ("reviewed input", schema declaration_form_spec C168). This clearly separates it from dosare_c168_prefill (which produces the input) and dosare_d212_create (a different form), so an agent can route without opening the schema.

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?

Gives the sequencing context explicitly: consume the reviewed input, then run declarations_validate and declarations_file_via_agent. It also states the business constraint that ANAF processes one C168 per landlord and period at a time, which affects when the call can succeed. It stops short of stating explicit exclusions or prerequisites (e.g. that prefill must exist first) or what to do on 422 beyond the error signal.

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