cancel_rfq_quote

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

The description only states 'Cancel a quote,' implying a destructive action, but does not disclose effects (e.g., whether the quote must be pending, reversibility, permissions needed). With no annotations, the description fails to add behavioral context beyond the obvious.

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 very short and uses a clear bullet list for parameters. It is concise but still minimally informative. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the args section could be integrated more naturally.

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 tool with three parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description lacks important context: what a quote is, when cancellation is allowed, and what the result indicates. Given the complexity, the description is incomplete.

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 description clarifies that exactly one of quote_id, rfq_id, or quote_link_id is required, which is not evident from the schema (all optional). However, it does not explain the meaning of these IDs or their formats, falling short of compensating for the 0% schema description 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 explicitly states 'Cancel a quote.' This clearly identifies the verb (cancel) and resource (quote), distinguishing it from sibling tools like cancel_order or cancel_rfq, which target different entities.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., cancel_rfq, cancel_order). The requirement that one of three IDs must be provided is stated, but there is no context on prerequisites or exclusions.

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