teamleader_quotation_send

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the primary action (sending via email) and does not reveal side effects like status changes, the generation of cloud sign links, email delivery behavior, or potential failures. This is a significant lack of transparency for a mutating action.

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 a single, direct sentence with no filler words. It is concise and immediately front-loaded with the core action.

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?

The tool has five required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description is only one sentence. It does not explain the full workflow (e.g., how to use the #LINK placeholder for the cloud sign URL, whether sending updates the quotation status, or what the agent should expect in return). This is insufficient for a complex action that sends emails.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all five parameters, so the schema already provides complete parameter semantics. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail, earning a baseline 3.

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 action: 'Send a quotation via email.' It uses a specific verb ('Send') and resource ('quotation'), and the email medium is explicit. This distinguishes it from siblings like quotation_accept or quotation_download.

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 teamleader_invoice_send or teamleader_quotation_accept. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.

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