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

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: it has no number yet, reaches no customer, is reversible ('deleted with one call'), and requires no confirmation ('does not ask for your OK'), plus an auth requirement (Cotlet API key). This tells the agent the mutation is safe and low-stakes, which the bare destructiveHint=false annotation does not convey.

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?

Front-loads the key fact (draft quote), but the first three sentences restate the same idea ('Save a draft quote... Nothing is sent. Saves a quote (Angebot) as a draft'), which is redundant and costs space without adding information.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, it covers the essential facts an agent needs: draft status, reversibility, no confirmation prompt, downstream workflow, and auth requirement, and notes that totals are returned. Fairly complete, though it omits what fields are echoed back or any limits.

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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters with formats (dates, line item structure). The description adds no parameter-level syntax or constraints beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Save a draft quote') and immediately scopes it as a draft ('Nothing is sent'), distinguishing it from siblings like finalize_document and send_document. An agent can identify this as the draft-creation step without opening the schema.

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?

Positions the tool in a workflow by naming finalize_document as the follow-on step and explaining that totals are returned 'so you can read them before finalize_document.' No explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the draft-vs-final distinction gives clear context for selection.

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