create_quote

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool returns the created quote with line items, subtotal, and total, and that dollar amounts are converted to cents internally. However, it does not mention permissions, idempotency, error behavior, or side effects beyond creation. Some behavioral context is provided, but it is not comprehensive.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by return value and a unit conversion note. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy or fluff. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover return behavior, which it does by stating the created quote's contents. It also covers the unit conversion nuance. The schema handles parameter descriptions. While it doesn't address error cases or prerequisites, the description is reasonably complete for a create tool with clear parameters, and it explains the key behavioral aspects.

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 has 100% description coverage, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that line item amounts are in dollars and are converted to cents internally, which is not explicitly stated in the schema. This clarifies the unit semantics for the unitCost parameter and the behavior of the system.

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 a new quote in Jobber for a specific client, with a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('quote'). It also mentions the return value, distinguishing it from sibling tools that are all read/list operations. The purpose is unambiguous and not tautological.

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 makes it clear when to use this tool: when creating a quote for a client. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the context is clear given the sibling tools are all list/get operations with no other create tool. No exclusions are stated, but the primary usage is evident.

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