dolibarr_validate_proposal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a state change (from draft to validated) but does not disclose side effects, permissions required, whether the action is irreversible, or the response format. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 a single, well-constructed sentence with no unnecessary words. It is 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?

Given the tool has only one simple parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate but minimal. It provides the core purpose but lacks behavioral details that would help an agent understand side effects, state changes, or error conditions. It is complete enough for a straightforward action but not for robust usage.

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 0%, and the description does not explicitly explain the 'id' parameter. However, the parameter is simple (integer, required) and its purpose is easily inferred from the tool name and context. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('validate/confirm'), the resource ('draft commercial proposal'), and the goal ('so it can be sent to the client'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'dolibarr_validate_invoice' by specifying proposals.

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 implies usage when a draft proposal needs validation, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it (e.g., if already validated), prerequisites (e.g., proposal must be in draft status), or alternatives. Compared to siblings, this is the only proposal validation tool, but no comparative guidance is provided.

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