send_quote

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Clearly states irreversibility (取り消し不可), error scenarios (403, 422), and optional idempotency key. This covers key behavioral traits beyond the basic action of sending.

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?

Description is a single, well-organized paragraph with warning first, then action, usage notes, and error codes. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) for scanning.

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 no output schema or annotations, the description provides necessary context: action, default behavior, error handling, and a prerequisite (get_tenant_settings). Does not detail return values or rate limits, but is fairly complete for a send email tool.

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 0%, so description must compensate for 7 parameters. It explains that subject/body/to/cc/bcc are typically omitted and idempotency_key is optional, but does not describe quote_id or the exact purpose of each field. Adds some value but not exhaustive.

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?

Description clearly states the tool sends a quote email to a client, emphasizing irreversibility. The verb '送付する' (send) and resource '見積書' (quote) are specific, distinguishing it from sibling tools like send_invoice.

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?

Provides explicit instructions: confirm details before sending, note that subject/body/to/cc/bcc are usually auto-built, and list error codes with cross-reference to get_tenant_settings. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use relative to siblings, but sufficiently guides typical usage.

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