dealdesk.create_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 usefully discloses that this yields a 'draft' and that snapshots are resolved server-side when directory ids are supplied, but omits permissions/auth requirements, mutation side effects, and idempotency for a create operation.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the id-preference rule, then the sibling routing. Every sentence carries distinct, non-redundant information.

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 needn't be explained, and the description covers creation semantics, key parameters, and the sibling alternative. The only gap is behavioral detail (auth, side effects) that goes unaddressed in the absence of annotations.

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 64%, so roughly four parameters (currency, language, opportunityId, etc.) are thin. The description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema by explaining why companyId/contactId are preferred (server-side snapshot resolution) and loosely mapping lineItems/options/groups, but it doesn't compensate for the uncovered parameters.

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+resource ('Create a classic draft quote') and enumerates the optional components (lineItems, options, groups). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling create_quote_from_configuration ('use ... for CPQ'), so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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 explicit when-to-use ('for free-form / open positions') and a named alternative ('use create_quote_from_configuration for CPQ'), plus a preference rule for companyId/contactId. The routing condition that selects this tool versus its sibling is fully stated.

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