invoices_export_payments_saga_xml

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal a useful behavioral trait: the account overrides (accountCash/accountBank/accountCard) override the chart-of-accounts, with defaults coming from stored SAGA settings. However, it doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only export, whether it outputs a downloadable file, whether it's destructive, or any side effects like triggering integrations. For an export operation with zero annotation coverage, more behavioral context would be valuable.

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 core purpose, followed by essential override semantics. No filler, no redundancy with the schema. Every clause earns its place—the first sentence states what and why, the second explains the override mechanism and defaults.

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?

This is a relatively simple tool (4 optional params, no nested objects, no output schema). The description covers the purpose, scope, target format, integration purpose, and override semantics. The only gap is that it doesn't describe the return value or output behavior (e.g., file download, XML string, status), which an agent would need to know without an output schema. But given the tool's moderate complexity, the description is reasonably 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and each parameter (companyId, accountBank, accountCard, accountCash) already has a meaningful schema description. The description adds context by explaining how the account overrides work relative to stored defaults, which is genuinely valuable beyond the schema. However, since the schema already documents each parameter individually, the parameter-level contribution is modest—though the description does explain the relationship between overrides and defaults.

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 clearly states the verb + resource + output: 'Export supplier payments (plati) in Saga XML format.' It further specifies the scope ('all incoming invoice payments for accounting software integration'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like invoices_export_saga_xml, invoices_export_receipts_saga_xml, and suppliers_export_saga_xml. The export target (payments vs invoices/receipts/suppliers) is precisely differentiated.

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 explains when to use this tool (for exporting supplier payments in Saga XML for accounting integration), which is clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives—for example, it doesn't mention that invoices_export_saga_xml or invoices_export_receipts_saga_xml would be the alternative for other export types. The purpose is clear but exclusions/alternatives are not explicitly provided.

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