validate_proposal

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the key side effect: making the quote visible and sendable. It does not mention reversibility or permissions, but the core state change is clearly stated.

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 one concise sentence with a parenthetical explaining the effect. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, with no redundant information.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and effect. It lacks details like irreversibility or permission requirements, but these are not essential for basic usage.

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 100% with both parameters (id, status) described. The description adds no extra parameter detail beyond the schema, such as the status values or default behavior, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the action ('Valider' - validate) and resource ('devis brouillon' - draft quote), with a clear outcome ('le rend visible et envoyable au client'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like close_proposal or convert_proposal_to_order.

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 phrase 'devis brouillon' clearly scopes the tool to draft proposals, providing explicit context for when to use it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the draft scope is sufficient for basic guidance.

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