dealdesk.create_quote_preset_from_quote

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose two meaningful traits: 'Copies commercial content only' scopes what is captured, and 'Does not change the source quote' reassures the agent this is non-destructive to the source. It omits auth/permission requirements and what happens on name collisions, which keeps it below 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then scope, then the non-destructiveness guarantee. Nothing is wasted and no sentence restates another.

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 mutation's effect on the source is stated. The description is nearly complete for this tool; the missing piece is any guidance on projectId authorization behavior already partly covered in the schema.

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 67%, with the projectId parameter documented in detail and name covered, while quoteId has none. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the quoteId gap is the notable remainder.

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 (save a quote as a named quote preset) and the direction of the operation, which distinguishes it from the inverse sibling create_quote_from_preset and from duplicate_quote_preset. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 implies when this tool applies (you want a reusable named preset from an existing quote) but never states when to prefer it over siblings like duplicate_quote_preset or patch_quote_preset, nor any preconditions. Usage is left to inference.

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