brc_send_quote_email

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

With no annotations, the description fully explains behavioral traits: it requires user confirmation, handles recipient email lookup, and manages multi-recipient sending. It also specifies that unsupported types should be rejected gracefully. However, it does not mention idempotency, rate limits, or what happens on failure beyond unsupported types.

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 detailed but somewhat verbose at ~150 words. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose. Some instructions to the agent (e.g., 'Do not call this tool...') are necessary but could be more concise. Overall adequate but not exemplary.

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?

Given no output schema and 9 parameters with full schema coverage, the description compensates well by covering workflow constraints, supported/unsupported types, and multiple recipient handling. Minor gaps: no mention of error handling beyond unsupported types or return behavior, but still strong.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds workflow context (e.g., confirmSend usage, multi-recipient logic) but largely repeats or slightly extends the schema descriptions. The added value is moderate, not transformative.

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 clearly states it sends a quote email and specifies supported document types (quotes, sales invoices, customer statements), explicitly listing unsupported types. This distinguishes it from sibling send email tools like brc_send_email_statement and brc_send_sales_invoice_email by document type scope.

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?

Provides explicit when to use (for supported document types) and when not to use (for a long list of unsupported types, with instructions to inform user). It also gives a clear workflow: require user review before confirming send, handle missing email, and handle multiple recipients with BCC vs separate options.

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