Create quote

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Create a price quote,' which adds little beyond the name. It doesn't mention permissions, idempotency, side effects, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 short sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the parameter hint is kept brief. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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 single-parameter create operation with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but leaves out important context. It doesn't mention what the response contains, whether the quote is persisted immediately, or any validation rules. Given the lack of annotations, more detail would improve completeness.

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 schema already provides a description for quoteData ('Quote fields'), and coverage is 100%. The tool description adds a few example fields (title, items, total, contact), which gives slightly more context but doesn't explain required structure, nesting, or constraints. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given schema coverage and minimal added value.

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 action ('Create a price quote') with a specific resource, and the name confirms it. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like create_invoice or create_order, so an agent might not immediately know the distinction without additional context. It's clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_invoice or create_order. There is no mention of prerequisites, workflow positioning, or scenarios where a quote is preferred over other document types. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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