create_proposal

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

There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It only says 'create', implying a write operation, but does not mention return values, initial status (e.g., draft), permissions, or side effects. This is minimal disclosure for a mutation tool.

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 that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. Every word is useful, with no redundancy or filler.

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, create operation) and the absence of an output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., new proposal ID), whether the proposal is created in draft status, or the need to add lines via add_proposal_line afterward.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all 7 parameters (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description itself adds no extra parameter context, but the schema is sufficient, warranting a baseline score of 3.

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 'Créer un nouveau devis commercial pour un tiers' (Create a new commercial quote for a third party), providing a specific verb, resource, and recipient. This distinguishes it well from siblings like list_proposals, get_proposal, and add_proposal_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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states the action without mentioning prerequisites, related workflow steps (e.g., adding proposal lines), or why one would choose this over similar creation tools.

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