teamleader_quotations_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the action (create) and a prerequisite (line items), but omits any information about permissions, side effects, reversibility, or return value. This is similar to the 'Update shared drive settings' example which received a 2 for the same gaps.

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 extremely concise, containing only 13 words across two sentences, with no fluff or repetition. It front-loads the core purpose and the key requirement. Every word earns its place, making it a model of brevity.

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 moderate complexity (nested line_items array, two required parameters, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not mention return values, error conditions, the relationship to the deal, or validation. The agent would have to rely on external documentation or trial-and-error.

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 compensate. It only adds meaning for the line_items parameter ('Provide one or more line items') and ignores deal_id entirely. The schema itself lacks property descriptions, so the tool's parameters are largely unexplained. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly construct a request.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('a quotation on a deal'), clearly distinguishing this creation tool from siblings like list, info, update, accept, and send. It also adds the critical requirement of providing line items, which is essential for execution.

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 to use this tool (when creating a new quotation for a deal) but does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. Sibling tools like update/accept/send make the use case inferable, but there is no explicit 'use this instead of...' guidance, so it remains at an implied level.

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