create_quote

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds important context that the quote is created but not sent, which is beyond annotation-provided safety profiles. This is meaningful behavioral disclosure for a mutation tool.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place, and it avoids redundant information already present in annotations or schema.

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?

Despite having an output schema and annotations, the description is too thin for a complex create tool with 14 parameters. It does not explain prerequisites (e.g., client_mid must exist), how fields like line_items map to MakeLeaps concepts, or any expected workflow. The no-send detail is helpful but leaves major gaps.

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 only 21%, with most of the 14 parameters lacking descriptions. The tool description does not compensate by explaining any parameters. For a create operation with 8 required fields, this leaves significant ambiguity for the agent on how to populate required fields correctly.

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 '作成する' (create) and the resource '見積書' (quotation) in MakeLeaps, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_invoice. The explicit '送付は行わない' (does not send) adds a critical scoping detail.

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 usage for creating a quote without sending, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., create_invoice) or any prerequisites like client/template existence. The no-send clarification is a mild usage hint but not sufficient for a clear distinction.

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