autotask_create_quote_item

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a creation operation (implying mutation) and mentions defaults for discounts and optional status, which helps understand behavior. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, error conditions, whether the operation is idempotent, or what the response looks like (no output schema).

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by essential constraints and defaults in a single, efficient sentence. Every part earns its place with no redundant information, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 the complexity (15 parameters, mutation tool) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the core action and key constraints, but doesn't address behavioral aspects like error handling, permissions, or response format, which would be helpful for a creation tool with many parameters.

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 15 parameters thoroughly. The description adds value by clarifying the mutual exclusivity rule for item references (serviceID, productID, serviceBundleID) and listing required parameters, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 'Create' and resource 'line item on a quote', distinguishing it from siblings like autotask_create_quote (creates the quote itself) or autotask_update_quote_item (modifies existing items). It specifies the exact action with precision.

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 provides clear context about setting exactly one item reference (serviceID, productID, or serviceBundleID) and lists required parameters (quoteId, quantity). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like autotask_update_quote_item or autotask_delete_quote_item, nor does it mention prerequisites like quote existence.

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