Refine a previous estimate (change quantity, material, tolerance, finish) by passing its quote_token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notes | No | ||
| token | Yes | ||
| finish | No | ||
| process | Yes | ||
| material | No | ||
| quantity | Yes | ||
| tolerance_mm | No | ||
| cad_reference | No | ||
| bounding_box_mm | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutation (refine/change an existing quote) but does not state whether this modifies the original record, requires permissions, is reversible, or what side effects may occur. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely modifies prior estimates.
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?
The description is a single, focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose and critical input (quote_token). There is no wasted wording, making it efficiently concise.
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 tool has 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description offers only one sentence. It omits return behavior, success/failure conditions, error handling, or any details about how the refinement affects the original quote. This is grossly inadequate for a mutation tool of this complexity.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain that the token identifies the quote and lists some changeable fields (quantity, material, tolerance, finish), but it fails to clarify the required 'process' parameter or optional fields like 'cad_reference' and 'bounding_box_mm'. This partial coverage is insufficient for a 9-parameter tool.
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 tool's purpose: 'Refine a previous estimate' with a specific mechanism ('by passing its quote_token'). It also lists the key modifiable fields (quantity, material, tolerance, finish), distinguishing it from sibling tools like request_quote (new quotes) and estimate_bom (BOM estimation).
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or mention sibling tools like request_quote for new quotes. The context of 'previous estimate' implies usage for refinements, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance.
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.
Each tool addresses a distinct aspect: discovery, single-part quotes, BOM estimation, process comparison, lead time, quote refinement, and DFM feedback. The slight overlap between request_quote and compare_processes is mitigated by their different purposes (single process vs. multi-process comparison).
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (compare_processes, request_quote, estimate_bom). dfm_feedback deviates because 'dfm' is not a verb, making it a minor inconsistency, but the overall naming remains readable and predictable.
Seven tools is well-scoped for a manufacturing estimation service. Each tool serves a distinct need with no redundancy, and the count is neither too sparse nor overwhelming for the domain.
The core workflow (discover capabilities, request quote, refine quote) is covered, along with BOM estimation and process comparison. However, there is no direct 'get_quote' tool to retrieve a previous estimate without refining it, which is a minor gap that can be worked around via refine_quote.