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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint/idempotentHint annotations by spelling out the overwrite contract: you must pass every line that should remain, not just the changed one, and discount lines are preserved automatically. This is exactly the behavioral detail an agent needs to avoid data loss that annotations alone cannot convey.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core destructive semantics, followed by the price-sourcing constraint and the scope boundary. No filler.

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 destructive, no-output-schema mutation with only two parameters, it covers the essential contract: full overwrite, discount preservation, price provenance, and draft-only scope. Only the return shape and draft-status preconditions are left implicit.

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%, so the description has to carry the load. It explains the semantics of lineItems as a full replacement list and ties prices to the contractor or price book (unitPriceCents/priceBookItemId), but never mentions quoteId or the per-item fields (name, quantity, unit, taxable) that the schema documents only structurally.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Replace ALL line items on a draft quote with the supplied list") and makes the destructive full-replace scope unmistakable. It also draws the boundary against push_quote_to_jobber by noting it only changes the quote in FieldDraft.

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?

Gives the trigger condition ("after the contractor asks for changes") and an explicit constraint on price sourcing with a confirm-before-changing rule. It doesn't name sibling tools like get_quote or push_quote_to_jobber directly, so the agent must infer the read-before-write sequence.

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