confirmar_cotizacion

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool verifies state before and after and requires 'draft' or 'sent' status, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose what happens on failure, whether the operation is reversible, or what the response contains. The state verification detail adds value but the mutation's side effects are not fully described.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by the state precondition and verification behavior. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential action and precondition. However, it lacks information about error handling, what the confirmation result looks like, and any side effects (e.g., sending the order, locking it). Given no annotations and no output schema, a bit more behavioral context would make it complete.

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 the description must compensate. It explains that cotizacion_id is the ID of the quote to confirm, which adds meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't specify the ID format beyond being an integer, which the schema already provides, so the added value is modest.

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 ('Confirma una cotización (Orden de Venta) en Odoo usando su ID') and identifies the resource (cotización/Orden de Venta). It distinguishes itself from siblings like crear_cotizacion by focusing on confirmation, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 provides clear context: the cotización must be in 'draft' or 'sent' state, and it verifies state before and after. This implies when to use the tool (when confirming a quote) and gives a precondition, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives.

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