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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: totals are recomputed, and accepted/declined quotes are never edited. It also implies the tool mutates the quote. It doesn't mention whether the operation is reversible or requires permissions, but the key behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 action and scope, followed by a critical behavioral constraint. Every sentence earns its place; 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 mutation tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it states what can be edited, the state constraint, and the recomputation behavior. It doesn't mention error cases (e.g., what happens if the quote is already accepted) or whether partial updates are allowed, but the core information an agent needs to decide to call it is present.

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 description coverage is 45%, so the description partially compensates by listing the editable fields (line items, currency, discount, VAT default, validity, notes). It doesn't explain each parameter in detail, but the schema already covers many. The description adds the semantic context that these fields are the editable set and that totals are recomputed, which helps an agent understand the effect of changing them.

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 states a specific verb ('Revise') and resource ('a quote that is still open'), and enumerates the editable fields. It also explicitly distinguishes the tool from quote_accept and quote_decline by stating that accepted or declined quotes are never edited. This clearly differentiates it from 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?

The description clearly indicates when to use this tool: when a quote is still open and needs revision. It also gives an exclusion: accepted or declined quotes are never edited, which implies using quote_accept or quote_decline for those states. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the exclusion is strong enough guidance.

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