Create a draft sales quote in Odoo and return a shareable summary, respecting the quote_send approval or auto-send setting.
Create a DRAFT sale.order in the scenario's company. Returns a shareable summary. Honors quote_send (approve → confirm before sending; auto → may send).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lines | Yes | [{product_id|default_code, qty, [price_unit]}] | |
| chat_id | Yes | ||
| connection | No | default | |
| partner_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.31.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose meaningful behavior: the record is created as DRAFT (not final) and the tool may auto-send a message, which is a real side effect an agent must know about. However, the approve/confirm/auto send flow is undefined, and there is no mention of prerequisites, partner requirements, or reversibility.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and return value, with no wasted words. The quote_send parenthetical is dense but economical; it could be clearer but it earns its place as a behavioral caveat.
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 mutation tool with a send side effect and no annotations or output schema, the agent is left with gaps: the meaning of chat_id and partner_id is undocumented, the quote_send resolution flow is unexplained, and there is no guidance on what happens without a partner. The description covers creation and return but not enough for reliable invocation.
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 25% — only 'lines' is documented, and even that is a terse format string. chat_id, partner_id, and connection have no schema descriptions, and the tool description does not compensate by explaining what chat_id (target chat?) or partner_id (customer?) mean or how they affect the quote. Low coverage is not compensated.
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 names a specific verb and resource — creates a DRAFT sale.order in the scenario's company — and clearly distinguishes it from the generic odoo_create sibling by being scenario-scoped and quote-specific. It loses one point because the 'Honors quote_send (approve → confirm before sending; auto → may send)' clause is cryptic: an agent cannot tell what approve vs auto mean or how they are configured.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus its nearest alternatives (odoo_create, telegram_send_message, telegram_agent_route). The description gives no when/when-not conditions and no exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the scenario-aware distinction on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.