dosare_d212_create

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

Annotations already declare create semantics (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds value beyond that: the result is only a draft (not a submission), and it names the exact follow-on path — declarations_validate, declarations_prepare / declarations_agent_result, recipisa into the dosar. It does not say what happens on duplicate drafts or what the create call returns.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the optional-input rule, then the lifecycle. Every clause carries information the agent needs and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 mutating tool with a nested freeform input object and no output schema, the description covers the workflow but not the return value (draft identifier? dosar id?) that later steps like declarations_validate would need, nor failure behavior. Adequate to make the call, but thin on what comes back.

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 only 33%, so the description must carry weight, and it does: it explains that 'input' is optional and that omitting it falls back to the prefill as-is, and it ties the input shape to the declaration_form_spec D212 schema. 'id' is only implied to be the dosar id via 'inside a ... dosar', and companyId is left to 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 verb and resource are concrete: it creates a D212 draft (rent scenario) inside a Declarația unică dosar, which the agent can distinguish from the c168 siblings by the declaration code and from dosare_d212_prefill by the 'draft from reviewed input' framing. It stops short of naming the prefill sibling as the source tool, so the boundary is inferred rather than stated.

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 gives a clear use condition ('from the reviewed input') and an explicit branch for the alternative mode ('omit input to use the prefill as is'). It also positions the call in the downstream sequence. It does not say when not to use it (e.g., an existing draft already present, or that prefill must be run/reviewed first).

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