mark_as_sent_quote

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the description adds no new behavioral context. It does not explain side effects (e.g., whether the quote becomes immutable, triggers notifications, or can be reverted) or any prerequisites. The wording merely restates the tool's name.

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 concise phrase with no wasted words. However, it is arguably too terse, lacking even a brief note on when to use it, so it only narrowly misses a perfect score.

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 is simple, but the presence of closely related siblings (send_quote, issue_quote, mark_as_sent_invoice) requires contextual disambiguation. The description does not clarify the precise scenario for marking a quote as sent, making it incomplete for an agent to select correctly.

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 100% (quote_id is described as 'the id of the quote'). The description adds no further meaning to the parameter, but since the schema fully documents it, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Mark quote as sent' uses a specific verb ('mark') and resource ('quote') with a clear state change. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'send_quote' and 'issue_quote' by focusing on updating the status rather than performing an external action.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'send_quote' or 'mark_as_sent_invoice'. Given the large number of quote-related sibling tools, explicit differentiation is necessary but entirely absent.

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