Create RFQ (draft by default)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly discloses that the tool saves a draft by default and that setting send:true emails suppliers with a quote link. This is a key behavioral trait. Missing details like the response format or error states, but the safety note is strong.

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 very concise—two sentences and a safety note—with no wasted words. Information is front-loaded: the main purpose in the first phrase, then critical usage guidance. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the main purpose, the crucial send parameter, and where to get supplier IDs. It does not describe the return value or item structure, but the schema covers the latter. Overall, it's sufficiently complete for correct use.

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 71%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds value by reinforcing the send parameter's behavior and sourcing supplier IDs. This is adequate but not extensive, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 creates an RFQ in AuraVMS, with the verb 'Create' and specific resource. The title adds that it creates a draft by default, distinguishing it from sibling tools like close_rfq or list_rfqs.

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 clear context: it defaults to draft and warns that send:true requires explicit user confirmation. It also directs users to list_suppliers or add_supplier for supplier IDs. However, it does not explicitly exclude use cases or compare to siblings.

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