create_sales_quotation

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

With annotations only carrying generic flags (write, not idempotent, not destructive), the description takes on the behavioral burden and delivers substantive details: Tally classifies Sales Quotation as an Order-class voucher ('PARENT Sales Order'), and Tally 'rejects it the same way' without orderNumber and per-item dueDate. It also discloses the voucher-type-active prerequisite. It stops short of describing success-path behavior, but the disclosed failure modes are the operative risks for this 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and scoped against the sibling. The middle sentence is dense but packs the substantiated requirements and the confirmed-live rationale. Minor redundancy across 'Same ... same way ... Same' is a small cost for the behavioral precision it buys.

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 6-parameter create tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers workflow position, prerequisites, and rejection behavior, while the schema fully documents every parameter. Success-return behavior is not described, but with no output schema and the failure mode disclosed, nothing critical is missing for this tool's complexity.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining why orderNumber and per-item dueDate are non-negotiable — grounded in Tally's Order-class voucher classification — rather than merely restating that they are required. The cross-reference to create_sales_order's 'same item-line shape' also lets the agent transfer known parameter semantics from a sibling.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('Sales Quotation in TallyPrime') and immediately distinguishes the tool from its closest sibling: 'one step before create_sales_order.' Combined with the follow-up note, an agent can unambiguously separate this tool from create_sales_order, create_sales_invoice, and update_sales_quotation.

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 explicitly positions the tool in the sales workflow — 'one step before create_sales_order' — and names the exact follow-up action: 'Follow up with create_sales_order once the customer accepts.' It also anchors a prerequisite to a named sibling ('Same voucher-type-active prerequisite as create_delivery_note'), giving concrete when-to-call and when-to-stop guidance.

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