volkern_update_cotizacion

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the status precondition ('only if status is 'borrador''), which is useful, but lacks details on permissions required, whether updates are reversible, error handling, or what happens to unchanged fields. For a mutation tool, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and key constraint. There is no wasted wording, making it easy to parse quickly for an AI agent.

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 the tool's complexity (5 parameters, mutation operation, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on return values, error conditions, side effects, and detailed parameter usage, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond the basic precondition.

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 40% (only cotizacionId and items have descriptions), so the description must compensate but doesn't add parameter details. It implies that 'estado' can be updated (via the 'borrador' reference) but doesn't explain the enum values or other parameters like validezDias and notas. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for moderate coverage.

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 the action ('Update') and resource ('a quotation'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling update tools like volkern_update_cita or volkern_update_contact, which follow similar patterns for different resources.

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 an implicit usage guideline by stating 'only if status is 'borrador'', which suggests this tool should be used for draft quotations. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when to use alternatives (e.g., volkern_create_cotizacion for new quotations or volkern_send_cotizacion for sending) or other constraints like authentication needs.

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