duplicate_quotation

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

The description discloses that the duplicate includes all items, accessories, and specifications, and that the result is a draft with a new number. No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden; it adequately explains what happens during duplication.

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?

Two clear sentences in Indonesian, front-loaded with the action and key details. No unnecessary words, but the language may slightly impact readability for non-Indonesian agents.

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 a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality, copied elements, and result status. It does not mention error handling or invalid UUIDs, but is sufficient for a straightforward duplicate operation.

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 coverage is 100% with a single parameter 'manage_quotation_id' described as the UUID to duplicate. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Duplikat manage quotation'), the resources included (items, accessories, specifications), and the result (draft status with new number). It distinguishes from siblings like create_quotation by specifying it's a copy operation.

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?

The description implies when to use this tool (to duplicate an existing quotation) but does not explicitly contrast with siblings (create, update, delete, restore). No when-not or alternative guidance is provided, but the purpose is clear.

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