mf_create_quote

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers almost none. It implies a mutating create, but says nothing about required permissions, auth flows (the sibling set has explicit auth tools), side effects, error behavior, or what the response contains. Only the 'invoice-system compliant' hint touches on behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, which is structurally clean. But for a 7-parameter nested create tool it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise, so it earns only a middling score.

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 complex create operation with 7 parameters, nested line items, no annotations and no output schema, one sentence is far too thin. The rich schema (especially department_id and the tax-type enum) is good, but the description omits prerequisites, required-field emphasis, and any notion of success/failure behavior an agent would need.

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%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters, including the detailed department_id validation logic and the excise enum. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 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 gives a specific verb (作成/create) and resource (見積書/quote), and adds a qualifier — invoice-system (インボイス制度) compliant — that goes slightly beyond the tool name. However, it offers no scope details, no fields, and no differentiation from the many sibling quote tools (mf_update_quote, mf_get_quote, mf_list_quotes, mf_convert_quote_to_billing); the verb+resource is largely recoverable from the name alone.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. that partner_id must reference an existing partner obtainable via mf_list_partners, or that items are mandatory), and no mention of alternatives such as mf_update_quote for editing an existing quote. The agent gets no routing help.

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