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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the 3-live-link cap, the owner/office permission scope, and that Doing Work charges no fee and does not process financing. However, it omits the create-vs-update semantics implied by financing_link_id and says nothing about what happens when the link cap is already reached.

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 scope in the first sentence, followed by constraints. Slightly redundant: 'Doing Work does not process financing or charge any fee' and 'the link goes to the shop's own financing company' both restate the no-involvement boundary.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the mutation's safety profile is partly covered by the fee/permission statements. Still, for a 7-parameter write tool with no annotations, the missing upsert semantics and cap-exceeded behavior leave an agent guessing.

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 71%, so the schema documents most fields; the description only echoes min_total_minor via 'quotes at or above its minimum'. It adds nothing about financing_link_id or shop_id, the two undocumented parameters, which are the ones an agent most needs clarified for upsert behavior.

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 (save) and resource (a financing link belonging to the shop) plus the effect on quotes above a minimum total. It is clearly distinguishable from financing_list and financing_archive by name and semantics, though it never explicitly names those 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'owner or office' signals a permission prerequisite and 'Up to 3 live links' signals a limit, but there is no explicit when-to-use clause, no when-not, and no pointer to financing_list/financing_archive as alternatives.

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