wafeq_quotes_create

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

Annotations already carry idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, and the description is consistent with them. Beyond the flags, it adds concrete behavioral context: 'calling twice creates two records' and explains the retry-safety mechanism via idempotency_key or a server-generated UUID. This tells the agent what actually happens at the API level and how to mitigate it, which is valuable disclosure.

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 and front-loaded, with the WRITE marker, resource, and endpoint in the first line and the critical non-idempotency warning placed prominently. Minor redundancy exists — 'Create quote' appears in the header line, as a standalone heading, and again as 'Endpoint for creating a new quote' — but the overall length is appropriate and every substantive point 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 tool with a complex nested body (line_items with ten sub-fields) and no output schema, the description covers the most important non-obvious behavior (non-idempotency and retry safety) but does not mention the response shape, whether the created quote is returned, or any validation prerequisites. The schema carries the field-level burden well, so this is adequate but with a visible gap around what the caller gets back.

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 fully documents all parameters and nested fields (contact, currency, line_items, quote_date, quote_number, and the rest). The description does not add new parameter meaning; its idempotency_key mention merely summarizes what the schema already states in detail about the X-Wafeq-Idempotency-Key header and automatic UUID generation. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Create quote', 'Endpoint for creating a new quote') and reinforces it with the `POST /quotes/` endpoint and the 'Quotes' resource marker. Within a large sibling set containing quote list/retrieve/update/destroy/download/invoice actions, this unambiguously identifies the create operation.

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 core use case clear — you use this when creating a new quote — but it never explicitly routes away from alternatives such as wafeq_quotes_update, wafeq_quotes_invoice_create, or wafeq_quotes_line_items_create. The only direct usage guidance is about passing idempotency_key for safe retries, which is parameter-level rather than tool-selection guidance. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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