Update a Pennylane quote's status to accepted, denied, invoiced, expired, or pending using its ID and new status.
Met à jour le statut d'un devis (accepté, refusé, facturé, etc.).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Identifiant du devis. | |
| status | Yes | Nouveau statut : 'pending', 'accepted', 'denied', 'invoiced', 'expired'. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and repeat-safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond naming example statuses, which the schema already enumerates. With annotation coverage this low-effort addition is acceptable but thin.
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?
A single short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. It is appropriately sized for a two-parameter status update, though the example list is slightly redundant with the schema.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile. The remaining gap is disambiguation from pennylane_update_quote, which is the one thing an agent genuinely needs here. Minimum-viable rather than complete.
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 100% and both parameters are fully documented in the schema ('Identifiant du devis', explicit status value list). The description only restates example statuses in French, adding no format, ID type, or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.
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 (update the status of a quote), which is clear on its own. However it does not differentiate itself from the sibling pennylane_update_quote, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which one to use when only the status changes.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternative pennylane_update_quote. The parenthetical list of statuses is illustrative, not a routing rule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.