sales_quote_negotiate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It reveals that the tool recalculates and shows margin delta, but it does not disclose whether the quote is permanently updated, if changes are reversible, or any authorization requirements. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 very concise: two sentences and an important note, front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy.

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 an output schema exists (though not shown), the description does not need to detail return values. It mentions that the tool shows margin delta, which hints at output. Still, it could be more explicit about side effects (e.g., whether the quote is updated in the system), but overall it is mostly complete for a revision 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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., 'revised_quantity' is optional and 'revised_margin_pct' is a decimal). It merely restates the parameters.

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?

Description clearly states it revises quantities or pricing on an existing quote, recalculates, and shows margin delta. It distinguishes from building a new quote by specifying 'existing', which helps differentiate from sibling tools like sales_quote_build.

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 positions the tool as 'Station 2' in a workflow and includes an important caution to review margin impact. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or list alternatives, though the context of 'existing quote' implies it is not for new quotes.

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