mf_convert_quote_to_billing

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the conversion action but fails to mention critical details like whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, permission requirements, rate limits, or what the output entails (e.g., creates a new billing record). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, efficient sentence in Japanese that directly states the tool's function without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for its purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 complexity of converting a quote to a billing (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, error handling, or how it differs from sibling tools, making it incomplete for effective agent use.

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 does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the input schema provides. Since the schema description coverage is 100% (the 'quote_id' parameter is documented as '見積書ID'), the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter semantics without extra description.

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 ('convert') and the resources involved ('quote to billing'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from the sibling tool 'mf_create_billing_from_quote', which appears to serve a similar function, preventing a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'mf_create_billing_from_quote' or 'mf_create_billing'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a valid quote ID, or any exclusions, leaving usage ambiguous.

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