convert_quote_to_invoice

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: the quote's status is mutated to accepted as a side effect, and the invoice inherits items and tax. It omits error behavior (e.g. what happens if the quote is already accepted) and whether repeated calls create duplicates.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the primary effect and uses the parenthetical efficiently to describe copied fields. No filler or redundancy.

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 described, and the annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a two-step conversion mutation the description leaves real gaps: the meaning of due_in_days and the behavior on an already-converted quote, both of which affect correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden for two parameters, yet it explains neither. quote_number is self-evident from its name, but due_in_days (a nullable integer with a null default) is completely unaddressed — an agent cannot tell from the description whether the invoice due date defaults, is required, or how it is computed.

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 names a specific verb pair and resource ('mark a quote as accepted and create the matching invoice'), which clearly distinguishes it from create_invoice or create_quote alone. The parenthetical '(same items and tax)' further pins down the copied data. It stops short of explicitly naming siblings like create_invoice as the from-scratch alternative.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this applies when an accepted quote should become an invoice, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over set_quote_status plus create_invoice, nor any prerequisite (e.g. quote must exist / not already converted). No exclusions are given.

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