Select a Setell quote tier

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

The description adds significant behavioral detail beyond the annotations (all false). It explains that GOOD/BEST create new quote versions via a deterministic revision engine, while BETTER is a no-op. It also warns about a 409 stale error condition. 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?

The description is concise (4 sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence provides essential information: action, level distinction, error handling, and subsequent steps. No wasted 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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the side effects (new quote version for GOOD/BEST, no-op for BETTER) and subsequent steps (compose/send). However, it does not describe the return value, which may be inferred but is not explicit.

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%, but the description adds value by specifying that tierGroupId comes from 'setell_generate_quote_tiers' or 'setell_get_quote_tiers' and explains the semantic difference among the level enum values (GOOD/BEST vs BETTER).

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's purpose: to make a chosen tier (good/better/best) the active quote for a job. It distinguishes between the behavior for GOOD/BEST (creating a new quote version) and BETTER (no-op), which differentiates this tool from siblings like 'setell_generate_quote_tiers' and 'setell_get_quote_tiers'.

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 clear context: it is used after generating tiers, and it indicates that compose/send operate on the chosen tier afterward. It also gives error handling guidance (409 stale means regenerate). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives.

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