dealdesk.create_quote_from_configuration

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does add real value by noting quoteLayout is presentation-only and that 'commercial amounts stay server-evaluated', telling the agent pricing is not client-supplied. It still omits auth/permission needs, reversibility, and what happens to unspecified fields, so a mutation tool at this complexity is under-disclosed.

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 dense sentences with no filler, front-loading the primary action before the quoteLayout caveat. Efficient, though the parenthetical '(CPQ)' and the semicolon clause make it slightly compressed for a high-stakes create operation.

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 explained, but a 12-parameter, nested-object, no-annotation mutation tool requires more than two sentences. Nothing explains the CPQ configuration contract, how the revision IDs interlock, or who may call it, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 only 25% across 12 parameters, so the description is expected to compensate and does not. It clarifies quoteLayout and hints at configuration semantics ('server-evaluated amounts') but leaves title, locale, currency, language, companyId, contactId, customerReference, and both revision IDs undescribed.

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 ('Create a quote from a published Portfolio configuration (CPQ)') and the CPQ provenance implicitly separates it from sibling create_quote. It never names those siblings, so an agent must infer the distinction, keeping it below a 5.

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 phrase 'from a published Portfolio configuration' implies the precondition (a published config must exist), which is useful implied usage guidance. But there is no explicit when-to-use versus create_quote, update_quote_from_configuration, or clone_quote, and no exclusions.

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