Reject a quote

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

The description discloses the side effect of recording a LOST outcome and mentions the pricing learning loop, adding context beyond the annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences effectively convey the action and prerequisites. Could be slightly more compact, but it is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the outcome ('Records a LOST outcome') and covers the key input requirements. Suitable for a rejection tool.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description still adds value by emphasizing the default for 'by' and the necessity of 'confirmed: true', as well as the importance of the reason parameter.

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 tool marks a quote as REJECTED, specifying two possible rejectors (CUSTOMER or OWNER), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like setell_approve_quote or setell_send_quote.

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?

It instructs to always ask for the loss reason and to get explicit confirmation before calling, providing clear behavioral expectations. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like setell_accept_quote_on_behalf.

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