Create RFQ

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the description correctly implies a write operation. It adds that it returns the created object on success with HTTP 201. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (openWorldHint=true), error conditions, or auth requirements beyond what annotations imply.

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 concise at 4 sentences, covering the essential action and required parameters. It includes extra context like the API endpoint, which may not be necessary for an agent but does not detract significantly. A slightly tighter focus on the tool's function would improve it.

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 tool with a nested open object parameter (rfq) and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what fields the rfq object should contain, nor does it describe the response properties beyond 'returns the created object'. This leaves critical gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description lists required parameters but adds no new meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions. The rfq parameter is an open object (additionalProperties) and the description offers no guidance on its expected structure, which is a missed opportunity.

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 that it creates a new RFQ in a specified Project and Contract, and mentions it creates a new Commitment. It provides the API endpoint and required parameters. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create_commitment_contract or create_rfq_quote, which could cause confusion for an agent.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description merely states what it does without indicating scenarios where other tools might be more appropriate. No when-not-to-use or alternative tool mentions.

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