Lock the quote and get a single-use signing link for the customer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| quote_id | Yes | ||
| email_customer | No | Also email the customer a branded email with their own signing link, from the shop. Default false: you share sign_url yourself. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / email_customerAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Also email the customer a branded email with their own signing link, from the shop. Default false: you share sign_url yourself.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description still discloses two important behaviors: it locks the quote (a state change) and returns a single-use signing link (a security-relevant artifact). It omits permissions, whether locking is reversible, what happens if the quote is already locked, and any link expiry behavior.
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?
It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The core action and result are stated immediately.
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 two-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core effect and returned artifact. It still leaves operational questions unanswered, especially permissions, reversibility of locking, and the exact return shape or expiry of the signing link.
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?
The schema documents email_customer well but leaves quote_id undocumented. The description refers to 'the quote' but adds no format, constraints, or selection semantics for quote_id, and it adds nothing about email_customer beyond 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?
The description names specific actions ('lock the quote', 'get a single-use signing link') and the resource is clearly a quote. It is distinct enough to understand the function, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related siblings such as signatures_newLink or quotes_withdraw.
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: this is the step for locking a quote and generating a customer signing link. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not, and no named alternative such as signatures_newLink or quotes_withdraw.
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.