Create a new customer estimate with items, dates, and notes. Automatically handles required fields for successful submission.
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?
Annotations already provide idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, shifting some burden off the description. The description adds one useful behavioral fact: the tool internally handles InvoiceShelf's undocumented required fields. However, it does not disclose any side effects, such as whether the estimate is automatically sent, what status it gets, or what happens on validation failure.
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 sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary purpose and then adds a useful implementation detail, making every word earn its place.
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 create operation with 7 parameters, nested items, low schema coverage, and no output schema, this description is too sparse. It leaves out the return value, post-creation state, and any preconditions. The internal-fields note is helpful context but insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's complete behavior.
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%, so the description needs to compensate for undocumented parameters like customer_id, items, notes, and reference_number. It does not explain any of these parameters. The statement about undocumented required fields is generic and reassuring, but not parameter-specific.
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 opens with 'Create a new estimate', which clearly specifies the verb and resource. This cleanly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_estimate, update_estimate, delete_estimate, and create_invoice. The additional context about handling undocumented fields does not obscure the core purpose.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_invoice or convert_estimate_to_invoice. It also does not mention prerequisites like the customer needing to exist before creating an estimate. Usage context is only implicitly inferred from the tool name and first sentence.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.