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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that the whole BOM is repriced, that a new quote_id is returned, and critically that older quotes of the project can no longer be ordered — an irreversibility warning most definitions omit. It also explains the verbose flag's effect and that reason is surfaced to the user in the activity log.

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?

A single dense sentence with one parenthetical, front-loaded with the core action and scope before the side-effect and return-value details. Slightly overpacked with clauses, but each one carries distinct information.

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 13-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers the mutation surface, repricing side effect, quote invalidation, and response shape; an output schema also exists so return-value detail is not required. It stops short of covering error cases (e.g. invalid part or line number) and confirmation that unrelated lines are preserved.

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 100% and the schema already documents each parameter well (qty=0 means do not populate, omitting line adds a new line, pack_size semantics). The description adds value by mapping user intents to parameters ('swap a line's part', 'change its quantity or pack size', 'add or remove a line', 'change the board count') and by restating the verbose contract, which is already in the schema.

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 (change) and resource (the project's current BOM) and enumerates the concrete mutations supported: swap a part, change quantity/pack size, add/remove a line, change board count. It clearly is not a read tool like check_bom or find_alternatives, but it never names a sibling to disambiguate routing explicitly.

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 phrase 'without sending it again' implies this is the path for editing an existing BOM rather than re-uploading, and 'accept an alternative' hints it follows find_alternatives. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no stated prerequisite flow (e.g. call check_bom/lines_detail first to get line numbers).

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