Send quote

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

Annotations declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, destructive, open-world, but the description adds what those hints cannot: the state transition to 'awaiting acceptance', that mail is sent from Tradify, that partial failure is possible (the call stops before approving when 2-Step Security is absent), and that repeat sends are permitted despite idempotentHint=false. That is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before invoking a real-world email send.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and outcome, followed by the operational details (defaults, re-send, security prerequisite). The second sentence restates the accept/decline link slightly, but that minor overlap is offset by the density of unique information per sentence.

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 write tool with no output schema and an external email side effect, the description covers state change, delivery channel, defaults, and the blocking prerequisite. It stops short of describing what the call returns on success or failure, which would complete the picture.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3, and the description usefully explains default resolution for `to` (customer's email), subject, and message (quote email template). It does not explain `send_me_a_copy`, which is undocumented in both schema and description, keeping it below a 5.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb pair (approve + email) on a specific resource (quote), including the customer-facing accept/decline link. This is unambiguously distinct from siblings like create_quote (drafting) and send_invoice (different document type).

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?

It gives concrete preconditions: the quote must be a draft that gets approved, re-sending an already-approved quote is allowed, and sending only works when the login has 2-Step Security set up (otherwise the call aborts before approving). No sibling tool is named as an alternative, but no reasonable alternative exists for this action, so the guidance is effectively complete.

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