merit_send_sales_invoice_einvoice

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful context: the HTTP verb and endpoint, the meaning of the id parameter, the delivNote behavior, and an expected error code. However, it does not disclose side effects, permissions, or whether sending is irreversible, which would be especially relevant for an action that transmits an invoice externally.

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 extremely compact: a front-loaded purpose statement, the endpoint, the required parameter, and a concise note about the optional parameter and error case. Every sentence adds value, with no filler or repetition. It is efficiently structured for quick agent parsing.

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 simple two-parameter action with no output schema, the description provides enough to invoke the tool correctly: required id, optional delivNote, and the principal failure mode. It does not describe the response format, but that is acceptable given the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of a send action. Slightly more detail on outcomes would push it to 5.

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 100%, and the description largely restates what the schema already provides: id is the invoice GUID/SIHId, and delivNote controls sending without prices. It adds the error-code context for a receiver incapable scenario, but this is not parameter-level semantics beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 opens with 'SENDS E-INVOICE' and explicitly states the action: send a Merit Aktiva sales invoice as an e-invoice. It includes the specific endpoint and identifies the exact resource (invoice GUID/SIHId), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings like merit_email_sales_invoice or merit_get_sales_invoice_pdf.

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 clearly implies this tool is for e-invoice sending, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from alternatives or state when not to use it. The 'Receiver not capable' note is a failure condition, not usage routing guidance. An agent could infer the use case from the tool name and context, but explicit sibling differentiation is absent.

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