Create a new estimate in InvoiceShelf by supplying customer, dates, and line items; the tool fills in undocumented required API fields for you.
Create a new estimate. Handles InvoiceShelf's undocumented required fields internally.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | ||
| notes | No | ||
| customer_id | Yes | ||
| expiry_date | Yes | YYYY-MM-DD | |
| estimate_date | Yes | YYYY-MM-DD | |
| template_name | No | Defaults to "tobeworks". | |
| reference_number | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely useful behavioral trait: InvoiceShelf's undocumented required fields are handled internally. That is non-obvious and beyond the schema. It still says nothing about authentication, side effects, ID/response shape, or what exactly gets auto-filled.
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?
Two short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence earns its place by disclosing internal behavior, though it is cryptic about specifics.
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?
This is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, so the description should explain permissions, effects, and return value. It omits all of these, leaving an agent without the context needed to call it confidently.
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 43% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate, but it mentions no parameter semantics at all. The vague note about handling 'undocumented required fields internally' does not tell the agent which fields are auto-populated or how to format the others.
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 estimate'), which distinguishes it from sibling create_invoice and from read/update/delete estimate tools. However, it offers no explicit differentiation from create_invoice or convert_estimate_to_invoice, so routing relies on the resource noun alone.
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 guidance and no mention of alternatives such as create_invoice or convert_estimate_to_invoice. The agent is left to infer that this is the entry point when a new estimate is needed and that nothing else should be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.