jobber_create_quote

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the operation creates a quote, but says nothing about whether the quote is saved as a draft, sent to the client, requires special permissions, or what the response contains.

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 short and front-loads the core purpose in one clear sentence. The second sentence adds a little parameter guidance, though it partly duplicates schema information and omits deposit.

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 simple create tool with fully documented parameters, this is minimally viable. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves out the behavior after creation, error cases, and whether existing client IDs are required prerequisites.

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 parameters. The description adds modest value by singling out title, line items, and the optional message, but it does not explain relationships, valid formats, or the deposit parameter.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Create a new quote in Jobber for a client.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like jobber_create_job and jobber_list_quotes by naming the exact resource being created.

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 implies use when creating a quote for a client, and the 'for a client' phrasing suggests a client must exist. However, it does not explicitly discuss when to prefer this over alternatives like creating a job or invoice, nor does it state any prerequisites.

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