dealdesk.clone_quote

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that the result is a new draft; it never says whether the source quote is left untouched, whether line items/shares are copied, what state the draft lands in, or what permissions are required beyond the schema note on projectId.

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, front-loaded with the core action and with no filler. The trailing 'Prefer clone...' sentence is colloquial but earns its place as routing guidance.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and required/optional params are clear from the schema. For an unannotated mutation tool with a nested customerReference object, however, the description should say more about side effects and what gets copied vs. retargeted.

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 low (29%, 7 params), so the description must compensate, and it partially does by naming the retargetable fields (title, opportunity, Customer Directory company/contact). But customerReference, opportunityId, and the relationship between companyId/contactId and customerReference are left unexplained.

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 ('Clone an existing quote into a new draft') that an agent can distinguish from create_quote, create_quote_from_configuration, and patch_quote among the siblings. The output being a draft, not a finalized quote, sharpens the intent further.

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?

Gives a clear selection heuristic: 'Prefer clone when the user likes a past quote.' That routes the agent away from create_quote in a common scenario, though it never names the alternative tools or states when cloning is inappropriate.

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