volkern_create_cotizacion

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create a new quotation/quote' implies a write operation, but it doesn't specify permissions required, whether the creation is irreversible, what happens on success/failure, or if there are rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool with no structured safety hints.

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 concise with just four words, making it front-loaded and efficient. Every word contributes directly to stating the tool's purpose without any redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, which is ideal for brevity.

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 of a creation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like error handling, return values, or prerequisites, leaving the agent with incomplete guidance for proper invocation in a system with many sibling tools.

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 fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining relationships between 'leadId' and 'dealId' or clarifying 'validezDias' usage. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 verb ('create') and resource ('quotation/quote'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'volkern_create_contrato_from_cotizacion' or 'volkern_send_cotizacion', which would require more specificity about when to create versus convert or send a quotation.

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. With siblings like 'volkern_create_contrato_from_cotizacion' (which creates a contract from a quotation) and 'volkern_update_cotizacion' (which updates an existing quotation), the agent lacks context on whether to create a new quotation or modify an existing one, or how this relates to other creation tools like 'volkern_create_deal'.

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