accelo_create_quote

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a write operation but says nothing about authentication requirements, permission scope, whether the created quote is a draft or published, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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 lead sentence is front-loaded and the parameter list is compact one-liners. The generated 'Args:' block is somewhat boilerplate but every line earns its place by supplying missing parameter semantics.

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 11 parameters, a mutation side effect, no output schema, and no annotations, the definition covers inputs well but omits return shape, side effects, and usage context. It is adequate for invocation but not for an agent reasoning about consequences.

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%, so the description must compensate. It annotates all 11 parameters with meaning: requireds are flagged, 'against_type' is given the concrete example 'prospect', 'date_expiry' is noted as a unix timestamp, and three fields are identified as HTML. This substantially fills the schema gap, though types and nullability are not fully restated.

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 and resource ('Create a new quote (proposal)'), which distinguishes it from accelo_update_quote, accelo_get_quote, accelo_list_quotes, and accelo_count_quotes in the sibling set. The parenthetical synonym 'proposal' adds useful domain disambiguation.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus accelo_update_quote or other siblings, and no workflow context (e.g., a quote typically attaches to a prospect or job). The agent is left to infer the creation use case from the name alone.

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