dolibarr_add_proposal_line

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'add', implying a write operation, but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or constraints (e.g., proposal must be editable, no mention of idempotency).

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. Perfectly concise and front-loaded with the key action and resource.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does not explain return values or side effects. Missing context about prerequisites (proposal existence), error cases, and typical usage patterns for a mutation tool.

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?

The description adds no information about parameters beyond the input schema. Schema coverage is 67% (4 of 6 parameters have descriptions), which is moderate. The description does not compensate for the two undocumented parameters (proposal_id, qty), but the schema itself provides adequate detail for the rest.

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 action 'Add a line item' and the resource 'existing commercial proposal'. It is specific but does not differentiate from sibling tools that add lines to other resources (e.g., contracts, invoices), though the resource name itself distinguishes them.

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 vs. alternatives (e.g., creating a new proposal). No prerequisites mentioned, such as requiring the proposal to be in draft state.

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