Create a new immutable revision of a supplier quote. The previous revision remains in history and the new revision becomes current.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | ||
| notes | No | ||
| currency | Yes | ||
| match_id | Yes | ||
| quote_id | Yes | ||
| warranty | No | ||
| tax_minor | No | ||
| fees_minor | No | ||
| valid_until | No | ||
| quote_number | No | ||
| payment_terms | No | ||
| delivery_terms | No | ||
| shipping_minor | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| quote | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations, the description adds key behavioral traits: revisions are immutable, the previous revision remains in history, and the new one becomes current. These are non-obvious and not covered by readOnlyHint/destructiveHint, making the behavior transparent and trustworthy.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and key behavior. Every word adds value; there is no fluff or repetition.
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?
The description covers the high-level revision semantics but omits any explanation of required inputs (match_id, quote_id, currency, items). While an output schema exists, the agent still needs to understand what each input represents. The complexity (13 params) makes the description incomplete without parameter guidance.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden of parameter meaning, but it does not mention any parameters. The only hint is the phrase 'supplier quote,' which weakly maps to quote_id, but does not clarify match_id, items, currency, or other crucial fields. This is insufficient compensation for the missing schema descriptions.
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 ('Create a new immutable revision') and the resource ('supplier quote'). It distinguishes this from a simple submit operation by explicitly noting the revision behavior, which helps differentiate from the sibling 'submit_supplier_quote'.
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 descriptor implies this tool is for revising an existing supplier quote, as it says 'new immutable revision' and 'previous revision remains in history.' It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the functional intent is clear from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Every tool targets a distinct resource, role, or action. For example, list_orders versus list_supplier_orders clearly separates buyer and supplier views, and update_supplier_order versus update_supplier_order_issue versus update_supplier_order_return handle different concerns despite similar names. Rich descriptions eliminate ambiguity.
All tool names consistently use snake_case with a verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_project, list_orders, update_supplier_capabilities, search_products). The style is uniform across reads, writes, lists, and searches, making the API predictable.
With 55 tools, the server far exceeds the typical well-scoped range of 3-15. Even for a broad supply chain platform, 50+ tools hits the rubric's 'extreme mismatch' threshold. The domain is comprehensive, but the sheer number overwhelms and likely complicates agent tool selection.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle from project creation, BOM management, sourcing, quoting, planning, checkout handoff, orders, returns, issues, warranties, catalog updates, supplier profiles, and validation. It handles buyer and supplier sides with appropriate state transitions, and includes meta tools for connection and schema guidance. No obvious critical gaps exist.