crear_cotizacion

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose that this is a creation operation and that it returns either the new quote ID or an error message. However, it omits details about authorization requirements, side effects, idempotency, or failure modes beyond the generic 'mensaje de error', leaving meaningful gaps for a mutation tool.

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 compact, well-organized, and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args, Returns, and example sections each earn their place, adding concrete usage detail without unnecessary verbosity.

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 two-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, the exact parameter shapes, and the return value. It falls slightly short of a 5 only because it does not mention preconditions such as the client and products needing to exist, or what error conditions can be expected.

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, and it does thoroughly. It explains cliente_id as the client ID and lineas as a list of dicts with product_id and product_uom_qty keys, and it provides a concrete example. This tightens the loose schema, where lineas items have additionalProperties: true.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Crea una nueva cotización (Orden de Venta) en Odoo para un cliente específico con las líneas de producto dadas.' This clearly states what is created, in which system, and for whom. It is also easy to distinguish from the sibling tools, which are search/listing/confirmation operations rather than creation.

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 makes the invocation context obvious: an agent should call this tool when it needs to create a new sales quotation with specified product lines for a client. It does not explicitly name alternatives or list when not to use it, but the creation-oriented wording is unambiguous enough to avoid confusion with the search/confirm siblings.

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