boond_quotations_send

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only states 'send.' It implies a side-effecting action but does not disclose whether the quotation is emailed, marked as sent, irreversible, or permission-gated, leaving the agent without a behavioral contract.

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 phrase is very short, parseable, and front-loaded with the action. It is not padded, but it is so thin that the brevity reads as under-specification rather than a deliberately structured description.

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 state-changing 'send' operation with no annotations and no output schema, this one-liner omits side effects, prerequisites, and expected outcome. It is not complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool with confidence about consequences.

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 description does not mention or explain `id`, and schema description coverage is 0%. The single required id is inferable from the tool name and resource, but the description adds no direct semantic value beyond the schema.

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 identifies the action ('send') and the resource ('a quotation'), so an agent can see this is the send variant of the quotation lifecycle. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from other send-style siblings or detail what sending means, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of boond_quotations_create/update/search/get, nor any prerequisites or context such as the quotation's required state before sending. The intended usage is only implicit in the verb 'send'.

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