set_pricing

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so well: it explains that null clears to 'not entered' while 0 is a deliberate $0, that a price nobody entered stays unentered and is named by estimate_summary, and that undo_last reverses the call. It doesn't address permissions or validation failure behavior, so not a 5.

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 core action and unit semantics are front-loaded, and every sentence carries operational content (waste rules, null vs 0, source discipline). It is a dense single paragraph without structural breaks, which makes the materials and null-handling rules harder to scan than they need to be.

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?

With an output schema present, the description correctly needn't exhaustively document the return value but still notes 'the reply carries the condition's estimate line.' Combined with the waste rules, null/0 semantics and undo linkage, an agent has what it needs; only permission and error handling are absent.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: material priced on the ORDER quantity with waste applied, labor on the MEASURED quantity, EA carrying no waste, and materials priced per their own package unit. This clarifies the non-obvious semantics the schema only gestures at.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Price one condition for the estimate') and anchors it to a concrete UI surface (the Estimate panel's row). It also distinguishes the tool from edit_materials by explaining that materials pricing targets rows created there, so an agent can tell them apart.

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?

Explicitly restricts price sources ('Every price comes from the estimator or a document they gave you — never invent, estimate or typical') and names related tools (edit_materials, export_takeoff, undo_last). It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use statement or a direct alternative for editing the condition itself, keeping it just below full marks.

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