volkern_send_cotizacion

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It lacks details on behavioral traits such as whether the email is sent immediately or queued, if it requires specific permissions, potential rate limits, or what happens on failure (e.g., error handling).

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, clear sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and front-loaded with the essential action.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a mutation tool. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like side effects (e.g., email sent, status updated), error conditions, or response format, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool fully.

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 both parameters ('cotizacionId' and 'mensaje'). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining the email format or how the custom message integrates, but the schema provides adequate baseline information.

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 ('send') and target ('quotation to the client via email'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'volkern_send_contrato' or 'volkern_send_whatsapp', which also involve sending documents via different channels.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a created quotation), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'volkern_send_contrato' for contracts or 'volkern_send_whatsapp' for WhatsApp messages.

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