Generate Proposal Pdf

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it omits key traits: whether a file is written to disk or returned inline, where it lands, auth requirements, or whether existing files are overwritten. It also does not state that the tool consumes the outputs of sibling tools (wbs_data, pert_data, quotation_data, roadmap_data), which an agent invoking it blind would need to know.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; verb and resource lead. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the cause of the gaps noted elsewhere rather than a virtue in itself.

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 15-parameter tool with six required fields, nested objects and no annotations, a single sentence is insufficient. The existence of an output schema excuses explaining return values, but the description should have said where the required nested structures come from (the sibling tools) and how the optional fields affect the generated document.

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 0% across 15 parameters, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It hints at wbs (desglose), buffer_data (buffers), roadmap_data (cronograma) and payment terms (condiciones), but leaves the majority of parameters (file_name, proposal_id, validity_days, warranty_days, risk_data, assumptions, out_of_scope, etc.) entirely 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?

States a specific verb ('Genera') and resource ('propuesta técnica/comercial PDF') and even enumerates the expected contents (desglose, buffers, cronograma, condiciones). An agent can distinguish it from the markdown and quote siblings by the PDF/proposal scope, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. With three other PDF-generating siblings (generate_quote_pdf, generate_action_plan_pdf, render_markdown_pdf) and generate_proposal_markdown, the agent must guess this is the one that turns the WBS/PERT/quotation/roadmap artifacts into a client-facing proposal.

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