Create quote

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

Annotations already declare that it writes and is non-idempotent, and the description adds real context on top: the object stays a draft, tax uses the default rate or a named rate, totals are computed as Tradify does, and price-list items/kits will not work yet. That discloses side-effect boundaries and failure modes an agent could not infer from the schema.

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 key constraint (nothing sent until send_quote) is front-loaded and the closing sentence reinforces it, so the reader gets the gist in one line. The middle is a dense run-on chain of clauses that could be broken up, but every clause carries distinct information.

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?

Covers creation semantics, defaults, tax handling, and unsupported features for a 7-parameter create tool with no output schema. The one real gap is that it never says what comes back (presumably a quote ID needed for send_quote), which the agent must infer.

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 already 86%, so baseline is 3; the description adds cross-field logic the schema lacks, notably that job_id must be a job of the same customer, that time-line prices come from the customer's price group unless unit_price is given, and that expiry falls back to a user setting. It does not explain reference, description, or tax_inclusive beyond the schema, which is acceptable.

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?

States a specific verb and resource up front ("Draft quote with line items") and immediately distinguishes its scope from send_quote. The related sibling (New Quote / send_quote) is named, so the agent can tell it apart from send_invoice and create_invoice_from_quote.

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?

Explicitly says nothing is sent until send_quote, which tells the agent this is the pre-send step, and it flags unsupported inputs (price list items and kits) as a when-not condition. It does not, however, position itself against create_invoice_from_quote or explain how a draft flows into invoicing.

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