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

Annotations already declare the mutation is non-destructive, idempotent, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real value by explaining the redundancy with start_order, but says nothing about revision-mismatch behavior, failure modes, or what confirmation changes downstream.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the purpose comes first and the follow-up routing second. The phrase 'for quote_id and revision' is slightly opaque but earns its place by naming the key inputs.

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?

This is a mutation with five required parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, yet the description explains only two of the five inputs and no return behavior. An agent still cannot determine what request_id, request_capability, or idempotency_key should contain.

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 every one of the five parameters is undocumented in structured fields. The description only touches quote_id and implies expected_revision; request_id, request_capability, and idempotency_key (with its 32-char minimum) are left entirely unexplained.

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: 'Record final quote confirmation' for a given quote_id and revision. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling start_order by noting that start_order can record the same selection, which lets an agent tell the two apart.

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 explicit sequencing: 'Use start_order next', and clarifies that start_order also records this selection if not already confirmed, which effectively tells the agent this step can be skipped. It stops short of listing exclusions such as when a quote is not eligible to be confirmed.

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