autotask_create_quote_item

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 discloses the mutual exclusivity rule and defaults for discounts and isOptional. However, it lacks information on side effects like whether the quote must be in a certain status, permissions needed, or if totals are recalculated. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy. It is concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the complexity (15 parameters) and no output schema, the description adequately covers the essentials for using the tool. It explains the critical mutual exclusivity and defaults, and sibling tools like autotask_search_quote_items can be used to verify creation. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no mention of output), but it is sufficient.

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 100%, with each parameter already described. The description adds value by explicitly stating the defaults (e.g., unitDiscount=0) and the critical 'exactly one' rule for item references, which is not fully captured in individual parameter descriptions.

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 clearly states the action ('Create a line item on a quote') and specifies the resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like autotask_search_quote_items and autotask_update_quote_item by explicitly being the create operation.

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 provides strong usage guidance by specifying required fields (quoteId, quantity), mutual exclusivity of item references, and default values. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool, but the guidance is clear enough for correct invocation.

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