create-quote

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 mentions that a 'deep link' is returned and should be displayed, which adds some context about output behavior. However, it lacks critical details: it doesn't clarify if this is a mutation (implied by 'create'), what permissions are required, whether the quote is draft or final, error handling, or rate limits. The description is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that directly address the tool's action and output. It front-loads the core purpose ('Create a quote in Xero') and avoids unnecessary fluff. However, the second sentence about displaying the link could be integrated more tightly, and it lacks structural elements like bullet points for clarity.

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 (7 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic action and output format but misses parameter explanations, usage context, error handling, and behavioral details like idempotency or side effects. For a mutation tool in a financial system, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters, but it provides no information about any of the 7 parameters. It doesn't clarify what 'contactId', 'lineItems', or other fields represent, their formats, or how they relate to quote creation. The description fails to add meaning beyond the bare schema, leaving parameters undocumented.

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 ('Create a quote in Xero') and resource ('quote'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update-quote' by specifying creation rather than modification, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other creation tools like 'create-invoice' or 'create-credit-note' beyond the resource type.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid contactId), compare it to similar tools (e.g., 'create-invoice' for binding documents), or specify scenarios where a quote is appropriate over other financial documents. Usage is implied by the tool name alone.

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