add_products_to_quote

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly=false, so the mutation is known. The description adds the nuance 'explicitly approved,' hinting at a confirmation requirement, but it does not disclose potential side effects, reversibility, or error behavior. It provides minimal added behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 sentence that is clear and free of fluff. It quickly conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words or details, fitting the criteria for concise, front-loaded communication.

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 has nested objects, a required confirm flag, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits context such as the need to provide account_id, the existence of a confirmation step, or what happens after successful addition. An agent lacks enough information to invoke the tool correctly in varied situations.

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 0%, and the description only mentions 'product quantities' without explaining the request structure, quote_id, account_id, or the confirm flag. Since the description does not compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions, it adds little value in explaining parameter meaning beyond what the schema already shows.

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 uses a specific verb ('Add') and a clear resource ('product quantities to a DigiKey quote'), making it easy to distinguish from siblings like create_quote or list_quotes. The phrase 'explicitly approved' adds a relevant qualifier that signals the operation is intended for pre-approved items.

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 implies the tool is used for adding products to an existing quote, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., create_quote_from_source) or mention any prerequisites. The intended context is inferable but not directly communicated.

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