merit_create_sales_offer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the endpoint and required fields, but the endpoint name 'sendoffer' strongly hints that the offer may be sent to the customer, and the description neither confirms nor denies this side effect. It also omits idempotency, authorization, and what happens on success — material gaps for a write operation.

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?

Three dense sentences with zero filler: the action and endpoint are front-loaded, followed by the required-field set and a global date convention. Every sentence carries information an agent would otherwise need to extract from the schema.

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 an 18-parameter creation tool with nested objects and no output schema, this is under-specified. The 7-value docStatus enum is unexplained, the ten undocumented parameters are left to guesswork, the likely 'send' behavior is unaddressed, and the response/return shape is never mentioned.

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 genuine value with 'totalAmount (ex-VAT)' and a compact required-field summary, but schema coverage is only 44% and 10 parameters (docStatus, refNo, currencyCode, departmentCode, roundingAmount, etc.) are undocumented in both schema and description. The docType and taxAmount notes largely restate the schema's own enum and property descriptions, so compensation for the coverage gap is insufficient.

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 concrete action — 'Create a Merit Aktiva sales offer' — with the HTTP endpoint (POST /api/v2/sendoffer), making the operation and resource unambiguous. The verb 'create' implicitly distinguishes it from siblings like merit_update_sales_offer, merit_set_sales_offer_status, and merit_create_invoice_from_sales_offer, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the tool for producing a new sales offer, and the docType guidance (1=quote, 2=order, 3=prepayment) adds task-level context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not guidance or mention of alternatives such as merit_update_sales_offer or merit_create_invoice_from_sales_offer.

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