Accept a quote on the customer's behalf

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

Annotations already indicate non-readOnly and non-destructive write operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it changes status from SENT to ACCEPTED, the action is audit-flagged as 'approvedOnBehalf', and it requires confirmed: true. This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it doesn't detail further side effects.

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 four sentences, well-structured and front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, audit flagging, request for note and confirmation, differentiation from DRAFT quotes. No unnecessary words.

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 that there is no output schema, the description adequately covers prerequisites (quote must be SENT), required confirmation, and audit note. It doesn't explain the return value or further effects, but the context is sufficient for a state-change tool. Slightly incomplete on side effects but overall strong.

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 parameters are already described. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the purpose of 'note' (short audit note) and the condition for 'confirmed' (must be true only after explicit customer confirmation). It reinforces the process, which is helpful for correct invocation.

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 clearly states the action: 'Mark a SENT quote ACCEPTED on the customer's behalf.' It specifies the verb (mark as accepted), resource (SENT quote), and context (on behalf). It also distinguishes from the sibling tool setell_approve_quote by explicitly noting 'Not for DRAFT quotes (setell_approve_quote first).'

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'they said yes by phone, meeting, or email outside the portal.' It also gives when-not-to-use: 'Not for DRAFT quotes' and directs to the appropriate alternative tool. It instructs to ask for an audit note and get an explicit yes before calling with confirmed: true.

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