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

The description discloses that the tool changes a quote's status, and annotations indicate it is non-destructive and not idempotent. It does not mention error cases or return behavior, but given the simple action and lack of output schema, the provided transparency is adequate.

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, compact sentence that conveys the core action, the actor (seller), the target state, and a prerequisite. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 simple status-transition action with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides the essential context: seller-side, paid quote, target state, and a required permission. It is nearly complete, though a brief note on expected effects could make it fully exhaustive.

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 sole parameter is fully described in the JSON schema as the UUID of the paid quote thread, which provides high schema coverage. The tool description does not add much beyond this, 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 clearly states the verb ('mark'), the resource ('a paid quote'), and the resulting state ('in_progress'), while also identifying the seller-side perspective. This distinguishes it from related quote actions like accept, reject, or withdraw.

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 when to use the tool (after a quote is paid and before work begins) and notes a required permission ('Requires the delegation's respond_quote action'). However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it.

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