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

Annotations already flag write + destructive, and the description reinforces that with the crucial 'items replaces all lines' warning and the patch semantics ('Only the fields you pass change'). It also discloses the return payload (quote number and new total), which matters since there is no output schema. Missing only permission/auth context and confirmation behavior.

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 operation and its precondition, then the destructive caveat, then the return value. 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?

With 8 params, no output schema and sparse schema descriptions, the definition supplies the field mapping, the items replacement rule and the return shape, which is nearly everything an agent needs. It would be complete at 5 with a note on permissions or behavior when the quote is not in draft/sent state.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it maps the prose field list (customer, dates, rates, notes, items) onto customer_id, issue_date/valid_until, tax_rate/retention_rate, notes and items. The important replace-vs-merge ambiguity for items is resolved explicitly. Sub-field formats inside items and rate units (integer percent vs absolute) remain undocumented.

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 (change a quote) and enumerates the mutable fields — customer, dates, rates, notes, items — so the agent knows exactly what surface this tool touches. It does not explicitly contrast with create_quote or update_invoice, but the draft/sent status scoping already separates it from most siblings.

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?

'Change a quote that is still draft or sent' gives a clear precondition for when the tool applies. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. what to do for accepted or converted quotes), so exclusion handling is implied rather than stated.

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