teamleader_projects_add_quotation

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without any mention of side effects, permissions, idempotency, or potential errors. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single sentence, making it very concise, but it is under-specified. It conveys only the basic action and omits necessary detail, which is a case of under-specification rather than effective conciseness.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is extremely thin. It doesn't explain the required parameters, relationship to other project tools, or any behavioral constraints. The description is inadequate for an agent to use the tool correctly in most real scenarios.

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 0% and the description adds no parameter explanations. The bare parameter names 'id' and 'quotation_id' are ambiguous (e.g., 'id' could refer to a project or something else). The description fails to clarify what each parameter represents.

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: linking a quotation to a project. The verb 'koppel' is specific and distinguishes this from sibling operations like teamleader_projects_remove_quotation. However, the term 'nextgen-project' is domain-specific jargon that could confuse agents unfamiliar with the system.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description gives no context about when to use this tool, whether certain project or quotation states are required, or how it relates to sibling tools like remove_quotation. The agent is left to infer basic usage from the name.

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