copy_quote

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

Annotations indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive, but the description adds no behavioral context. It does not explain that copying creates a new quote, what fields are duplicated, or any side effects. The burden falls entirely on the annotations, which are not enriched.

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 a single sentence, which is concise, but it is so sparse that it reads like a label. It is front-loaded but lacks any structural breakdown or additional useful 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?

Given that this is a mutation tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is critically inadequate. It does not explain the return value, required parameters' purpose, or the overall behavior of the copy operation, making it impossible to invoke correctly without external documentation.

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 67%, so baseline is not high, and the description does not compensate. It fails to explain how optional parameters like contact_id, pr_project_id, is_valid_from, or contact_sub_id affect the copy operation. The undocumented title and is_valid_from parameters remain unexplained.

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 clear verb ('copy') and resource ('quote'), so the basic action is understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools such as create_reissue_quote or create_invoice_from_quote, and it repeats the title without adding scope or detail.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use copy_quote versus the many related quote operations (create_quote, reissue_quote, accept/decilne, etc.). No alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned.

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