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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation, and the description usefully adds that totals are recomputed and that terminal quotes are rejected. However, it never clarifies the crucial partial-update semantics: with only "id" required, does an omitted field stay unchanged or get reset? That ambiguity matters most for a mutation with idempotentHint=false.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the mutable scope, followed by the side effect (recomputed totals) and the hard status constraint. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 an 11-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the status gate, the recomputation side effect, and most editable fields. The remaining gaps are the three client fields and the replace-versus-merge behavior of line items, both of which an agent would need spelled out to call this correctly.

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 schema coverage at 45%, the description does real work by naming the editable surface (line items, currency, discount, VAT default, validity, notes), which maps onto most of the 11 parameters. It omits client_email, client_vat_id, and client_address entirely, and it does not restate that items replaces every line, leaving the schema to carry that.

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 gives a specific verb ("Revise") and resource ("quote") plus the editable fields, and the clause "An accepted or declined quote is never edited" cleanly separates it from quote_accept, quote_decline, quote_create, and quote_delete without the agent needing to open any schema.

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?

It states the precondition clearly (the quote must still be open) and the exclusion (accepted or declined quotes are never edited), which effectively routes status-changing intent to quote_accept/quote_decline. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly or stating what to do when the quote is already in a terminal state.

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