brc_create_quote_gen_ref

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It extensively covers the tool's behavior: auto-generation vs manual reference handling, draft preview warnings, prohibition of default sales rep values, the two-step confirmation protocol (first call returns confirmation_required with a payload preview), and the need for explicit user confirmation on counterparty and CR analysis category. No contradictions with annotations (none provided).

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 dense with information but well-structured: it starts with the main purpose, then provides usage conditions, and then details step-by-step workflow. Every sentence adds value. However, it could be slightly more concise in some parts (e.g., 'When missing, list sales reps or ask the user to choose one before creating' could be trimmed). Overall, it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 the tool's high complexity (28 parameters, 18 required, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It explains the confirmation workflow, parameter constraints, and draft preview behavior. However, it does not describe the structure of the confirmation_required response or mention possible error scenarios (e.g., validation failures). The absence of an output schema makes it less complete, but the description compensates well.

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 only 36%, so the description must compensate. It adds significant meaning beyond the schema for key parameters: explains saleRepId/saleRepCode must come from brc_list_sales_reps, analysisCategoryId/accountCode must be from a Sales Analysis category and not defaulted to CR01, and details the confirmation flags (confirmWrite, confirmCrAnalysisCategory, confirmCounterpartyExplicit, confirmQuotesAutoGenerateInBrc). However, some parameters like ddNumber, poNumber, layoutType are not explained, leaving gaps for those.

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 tool's purpose: 'Creates a BRC quote with a generated reference using structured MCP fields.' It uses a specific verb (create) and resource (BRC quote with generated reference), distinguishing it from sibling tools like brc_create_quote which likely handles manual references.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool ('Use only when quote references are auto-generated... or when the user has confirmed auto-generate'), when not to use it ('Do not use default or demo sales rep values'), and alternatives ('If missing, list sales reps or ask the user to choose one before creating'). It also details the two-call confirmation workflow and warns against inventing values for missing fields.

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