Update RFQ

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

Beyond annotations, the description details partial update semantics, success return ('Returns the modified RFQ on success'), and common failure modes with HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404). This is valuable behavioral context not present in the annotations and helps agents anticipate outcomes.

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 compact and well-organized: purpose first, then update behavior, id resolution, return/error info, required params, and API context. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff or 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?

The tool is a mutation with 4 required params and no output schema, yet the description covers purpose, usage, return value, error handling, prerequisites, and endpoint. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke this tool correctly without needing additional documentation.

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?

While the input schema already covers all four parameters (100% coverage), the description adds practical meaning: id must reference an existing record (resolve via list tool), and the rfq object should contain only fields to change. This supplements the schema's basic descriptions without repeating them verbatim.

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 states 'Update an RFQ in a specified Project and Contract' with a clear verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_rfq, show_rfq, and delete_rfq. It specifies the exact scope (project and contract) and even includes the endpoint path.

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 gives clear context: 'Send only the fields you intend to change; omitted fields keep their current values' and instructs to resolve the id with the matching list tool first. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for exclusion, but the prerequisite handling provides strong usage guidance.

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