volkern_create_contrato_from_cotizacion

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a creation operation (implying mutation/write), but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens if the quotation isn't accepted, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for this tool's purpose and front-loads the essential 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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, error conditions, response format, or relationships with other tools. Given the complexity of contract creation and the lack of structured metadata, the description should provide more context about how this operation works.

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 80% (4 of 5 parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters, format requirements for dates, or the significance of 'metodoPago' choices. It relies entirely on the schema documentation.

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 clearly states the action ('Create a contract') and the source ('from an accepted quotation'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling 'volkern_create_contrato' by specifying the quotation source, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other contract-related tools like 'volkern_send_contrato'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the quotation must be accepted), when not to use it, or how it differs from 'volkern_create_contrato' which appears to create contracts without a quotation source. The context is implied but not explicit.

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