ebill_transmit

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the owner-gated connector, draft-by-default behavior, guard order, specific failure reasons, payload conformance requirements, invoice state transition, idempotency semantics, at-least-once delivery, and irreversibility. These details are consistent with destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true.

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 front-loaded with the action and then uses a structured guard-order explanation. It is fairly long and dense with internal jargon such as P8 and A10, but most of the detail is relevant for a high-stakes destructive transmission tool.

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 complex, irreversible transmission tool with no output schema, the description is strong on behavioral flow, precondition failures, and consequences. However, it does not fully document parameter meanings or the successful response shape, leaving some invocation details 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description needs to explain all four parameters. It only explicitly mentions confirmed=true, while workspaceId, deliveryId, and idempotencyKey are left implicit or only loosely referenced through phrases like 'prepared delivery', 'workspace dial', and 'stored correlation id'.

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 specific verb and resource: transmitting a prepared eBill delivery into the customer's e-banking via the connected eBill service. It clearly distinguishes this from preparation or configuration siblings by focusing on the outbound transmission and irreversible external consequence.

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 clear context for when to use it: after a delivery is prepared, with draft-by-default behavior and confirmed=true or a workspace dial to proceed. It explains failure gates that prevent transmission, but it does not explicitly name alternatives such as ebill_prepare or ebill_delivery_status.

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