create_quote

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Create a new sales quote' without any information about permissions required, whether this is a mutating operation, what happens on success/failure, rate limits, or response format. This leaves critical behavioral traits completely undocumented.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource, making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place by conveying the core purpose efficiently.

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 complexity of a creation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, parameter meanings, or expected outcomes. For a tool that likely involves business logic and data persistence, this minimal description leaves too many unknowns for reliable agent invocation.

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 for undocumented parameters. It mentions no parameters at all, failing to explain what 'organization_id' or 'subject' represent, their formats, or how they affect quote creation. With two parameters (one required) and zero coverage, this is a significant gap that the description doesn't address.

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 ('Create') and resource ('a new sales quote'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'create_invoice' or 'create_contract' by specifying 'sales quote' as the resource type. However, it doesn't specify what a 'sales quote' entails in this system, leaving some ambiguity about the exact nature of the resource being created.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_invoice' or 'create_contract'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an organization_id), appropriate contexts, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for optimal selection.

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