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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: changed/added lines are re-priced by the engine while untouched lines keep prices, and it discloses the auth requirement (signed-in Printdash account, sign-in prompt otherwise). This goes beyond structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the editable fields, then layered with pricing behavior, constraints, and auth. Dense but every sentence carries information; no wasted preamble. Slightly long single paragraph but coherent.

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 destructive, in-place mutation of a complex nested configuration, the description covers what changes, pricing consequences, blocking states, and auth—everything an agent needs to call it safely. Output schema and annotations handle return shape and safety hints.

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 low (33%), so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains the change-vs-add semantics of 'lines' (line_id with only changed options vs product_id plus full configuration), and names removal, reference, notes, and address. It meaningfully clarifies the two-mode 'lines' parameter that the schema alone leaves subtle.

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+resource (changes a saved quote in place) and enumerates exactly what can be modified: lines to change/add/remove, reference, notes, delivery address. This clearly distinguishes it from create_quote, duplicate_quote, and delete_quote 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?

Explicitly names when NOT to use it: 'Accepted, ordered, expired and team-priced quotes cannot be changed.' This is strong exclusion guidance. It doesn't name a specific alternative tool (e.g. duplicate_quote for those cases), which keeps it from a 5.

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