teamleader_quotations_send

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly calls out the side effect: 'SIDE EFFECT: emails the customer.' This is a significant behavioral trait beyond the parameter schema. However, it does not detail other potential behaviors such as whether the quotation status changes or whether permission requirements apply.

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 that immediately states the action and side effect. It is perfectly front-loaded and concise, with no wasted words. Every part of the sentence adds value.

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 simple send operation with no output schema, the description covers the core action and side effect. However, it leaves out potential details like whether the quotation status is updated after sending, or if the email includes a link versus an attachment, which could be relevant for an agent deciding between this and nearby tools.

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 low (33% of parameters have descriptions, only recipients_to). The description does not compensate by explaining the id or subject parameters. The agent must infer that id refers to the quotation and subject to the email subject, which could be ambiguous.

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 tool's purpose: 'Send a quotation by email' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list, info, create, update, and accept by explicitly specifying the sending action.

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 usage when the user wants to email a quotation, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or provide exclusions. There is no mention of when not to use it or how it compares to similar send operations like invoices_send.

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