dealdesk.create_quote_from_preset

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it declares the result is a draft, that confirm=true is required to write, that the preset itself is not mutated, and how priceChoice behaves when catalog prices differ. Gaps remain around idempotency/repeat-call behavior and what happens on invalid cardId, so it is not a full 5.

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?

Four short sentences, no filler, with the core action and the write gate front-loaded. Slightly telegraphic phrasing ('priceChoice keep|refresh') but nothing to cut.

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 output schema removes the need to document return values, and the description covers the key mutation semantics, but for a 6-parameter, annotation-free mutation tool it leaves missingLines undocumented and gives no routing versus the preset-application and plain-quote-create siblings. Adequate but with visible holes.

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 only 33%, so the description compensates for several parameters: confirm (write gate), priceChoice (keep|refresh semantics tied to catalog price drift), and cardId (optional desk-card link). But missingLines is left entirely unexplained in both schema and description, and projectId's scoping rule lives only in the schema — a real gap against the low coverage.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Create a draft quote') plus the source ('from a quote preset') and an optional linkage ('link it to a desk card'), so it is clearly distinct from the sibling tools create_quote and create_quote_from_configuration. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings as alternatives, which keeps it from 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?

Usage is implied by the name and the 'from a quote preset' framing, and 'Does not change the preset' mildly clarifies the boundary against preset-mutating siblings. However, it never says when to pick this over apply_quote_preset or create_quote, and there are no prerequisites stated beyond the confirm gate.

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