accelo_update_quote

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It reveals nothing about permissions, reversibility, partial-update semantics (all fields optional except id), or side effects on a quote's lifecycle/status.

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 one-line purpose is front-loaded and the arg list is compact with no filler sentences. It reads as a raw parameter dump rather than prose, but nothing is wasted.

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 an 11-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers parameter meaning adequately but omits prerequisites, partial-update behavior, and any note on what is returned or how errors are surfaced.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it names all 11 params with meaning, flags date_expiry as a unix timestamp, marks introduction/conclusion/terms_and_conditions as HTML, and specifies client_portal_access accepts "1" or "0". This is real value beyond the bare schema titles.

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 ('Update') and resource ('an existing quote'), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings such as accelo_create_quote or accelo_get_quote beyond the verb.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, what preconditions apply (e.g., quote must exist, permission requirements), or how it differs from create_quote/get_quote. The agent must infer usage entirely.

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