einvoice_config_save

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool performs a create-or-update (upsert) behavior, that it enables a provider, and sets credentials. It documents provider-specific config requirements (xrechnung, sdi, ksef, facturx). However, it doesn't disclose defaults behavior for the enabled flag or what happens on validation failure, though the config format specificity is substantial behavioral context.

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 a dense single sentence with a clear lead clause then a structured enumeration of provider-specific configs. Every sentence earns its place. It could arguably be broken into a bulleted list for readability, but the content is efficient with no filler or redundancy.

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 moderately complex tool with 4 parameters (all covered in schema) and nested objects, the description covers the critical ambiguity: what exact config keys each provider expects. The companyId default behavior is noted in schema. The anaf exclusion is clear. It lacks stated return/output info, but since there's no output schema and the tool is a config saver (create/update), the primary missing piece would be error/validation behavior, which is a minor gap.

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?

Despite 100% schema description coverage, the description adds significant value by detailing exactly which JSON keys each provider requires — clientId/clientSecret for xrechnung, certPath/certPassword OR apiEndpoint/apiKey for sdi, authToken/nip for ksef, clientId/clientSecret/siret for facturx. This goes well beyond the generic 'Provider-specific configuration as JSON object' schema text. The description also clarifies that ANAF config is NOT managed here, a valuable semantic distinction.

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 states a clear verb-resource pairing: 'Create or update an e-invoice provider configuration for a company' and 'enable a provider and set API credentials.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like einvoice_config_list (listing), einvoice_config_delete, and einvoice_providers (discovery). The description also explicitly names the config structure per provider.

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 says 'Use this to enable a provider and set API credentials,' giving clear context for when to invoke. It also notes ANAF config is 'managed separately via ANAF tokens,' an implicit exclusion that steers the agent away from using this tool for ANAF. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use it beyond the ANAF caveat.

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