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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: it creates a Draft only, sends nothing, uses no invoice number, requires client.email unless send_by allows otherwise, and routes actual delivery through send_draft. These details clarify the safety profile and workflow despite destructiveHint=true indicating a write operation.

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 dense but front-loads purpose and prerequisites, and most sentences add distinct operational value. A few clauses are run-on, but for a 10-parameter nested tool the size is appropriate.

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?

Given the complexity, high schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is complete enough: it covers authentication context, draft behavior, email requirements, send_by self, non-sending semantics, and what the tool returns.

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 already 90%, so the schema carries most parameter detail. The description adds meaningful semantics for client.email, send_by self, billing options, Lines, and split, but does not elaborate on deposit, due_days, or lines_per beyond 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?

States a specific verb and resource: prepare a quote as a Draft for one of the creator's clients. It names the core components (Lines, billing options, payment terms, split) and distinguishes itself from send_draft by clarifying that this tool does not send anything.

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?

Gives clear prerequisites (creators only, own Piku account) and explicitly says the draft reaches the client only through send_draft after review. It also explains the client.email requirement and the needs_client_email response, though it does not directly contrast with create_invoice.

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