dealdesk.create_quote_share

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It helpfully discloses the two return paths and the lifecycle constraint (soft-close only, no delete), but says nothing about authorization requirements, whether password protection changes behavior, or idempotency/re-creating an existing share.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the lifecycle constraints. Every clause earns its place and nothing is padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly names the two return values, but three of five parameters remain undocumented in both schema and description, and no auth or uniqueness behavior is given. Adequate for a create tool but with real 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 coverage is only 40% – label, quickchatEnabled and password have no schema descriptions – and the tool description adds no parameter meaning at all (it never mentions any of the five inputs). With low coverage the description is expected to compensate, and it does not.

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 customer share link for a quote') that an agent can immediately act on, and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling patch_quote_share used for the opposite lifecycle step. The return fields named (classicPath, experiencePath) further pin down what 'share link' means here.

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 clear context: use this to create a share, then soft-close later with patch_quote_share isOpen=false, and delete is unavailable via MCP. It routes to the alternative for teardown but does not state when this tool should NOT be used (e.g., if a share already exists).

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