add_proposal_line

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 the action without any details on effects (e.g., whether it modifies a locked proposal, requires specific permissions, or recalculates totals). For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and target. It contains no redundant information and is appropriately sized for a simple add-line operation.

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?

The description lacks essential context for a mutation tool with no annotations or output schema. It does not mention response format, error scenarios, or conditions under which adding a line is valid (e.g., only for draft proposals). This is insufficient for a tool with 7 parameters.

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 100%, and each parameter has a clear description (e.g., 'ID du devis', 'Quantité'). The tool description itself adds no extra semantic value beyond stating the overall purpose, which meets the baseline for high schema 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 a specific action: 'Ajouter une ligne de produit ou service à un devis' (Add a product or service line to a quotation). It names the verb, resource (line), and target entity (devis), which distinguishes it from similar sibling tools like add_order_line or add_invoice_line.

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 you want to add a line to a proposal) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives, nor mentions any prerequisites or exclusions. It lacks direct comparison to similar 'add_line' tools.

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