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

The description discloses a state transition and a permission prerequisite ('Requires the delegation's respond_quote action'), which adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations. The annotations already mark this as non-read-only and non-idempotent, so the additional permission note is valuable.

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 two tight sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the permission requirement is a useful second sentence. Every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, side, target state, and authorization requirement. The only slight gap is that 'delegation's respond_quote action' is not further explained, but the tool is simple enough that this is not a critical omission.

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 100%, and the schema already documents service_quote_id as 'UUID of the paid quote thread to start work on.' The description adds no parameter-level detail, but the schema fully handles it, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('mark'), identifies the resource ('a paid quote'), and states the resulting state ('in_progress'). It also scopes the tool to the seller side, clearly distinguishing it from buyer-side service tools.

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 gives clear context: this is a seller-side action that only applies to a paid quote, implying it should be used after payment and before deliverable submission. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is sufficient for basic routing.

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