teamleader_add_project_quotation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without explaining effects (e.g., whether it overwrites existing links, fails if quotation already linked, or requires specific permissions). No extra context about the operation's consequences is provided.

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, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core action and is appropriately short for a simple link operation, though it could arguably include a bit more context without sacrificing conciseness.

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 operation, the description is minimal but lacks important contextual details such as idempotency, return behavior, and prerequisites (e.g., quotation must exist). Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and side effects.

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 100%, with both 'id' and 'quotation_id' adequately described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 a clear verb ('Link') and resource ('a quotation to a project'), which is immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool teamleader_remove_project_quotation by implying the opposite action, though it doesn't explicitly name it.

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 or any prerequisites. There is no mention of when linking is appropriate (e.g., before project closure) or any exclusions. The agent must infer its usage solely from the name and description.

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