fiken_create_offer_draft

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation indicating mutation, the description adds no behavioral details: no prerequisite, idempotency, or side effects. It merely reaffirms the mutation without elaboration.

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 sentence, but it omits essential details. Brevity here sacrifices utility; it lacks structure (e.g., no parameter overview or usage example).

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 complexity of 11 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is critically inadequate. The agent cannot determine required fields, typical usage patterns, or relationships with the many sibling tools (e.g., offer drafts, invoices).

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?

With only 9% schema description coverage (only issueDate has a format hint), the description provides no information about any of the 11 parameters (e.g., lines, currency, contactId). The agent receives no guidance on parameter semantics.

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 states the verb 'Creates' and resource 'new offer draft', clearly identifying the action and object. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like 'fiken_list_offer_drafts' or 'fiken_get_offer_draft'.

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 on when to use this tool vs. alternatives such as 'fiken_create_offer_from_draft', 'fiken_update_offer_draft', or direct offer creation. The description provides no context for selection.

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