Update RFQ

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which align with an update operation. The description adds that it returns the modified object, which is useful but not critical. No behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide are disclosed, and there is no contradiction.

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 efficient: four sentences covering action, scope, update behavior, return value, required parameters, and API reference. It is front-loaded with the primary action and avoids redundant or irrelevant information.

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 description covers key aspects: what it does, how it behaves (partial update), required inputs, and the return value. It also includes the API endpoint for reference. However, with a nested 'rfq' object and no output schema, more detail on acceptable fields within 'rfq' could be helpful. Overall, it sufficiently equips an agent to use the 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 for all four parameters. The description merely lists the required parameters without adding meaning beyond the schema. For the 'rfq' nested object, no further details are given. Baseline is 3 given high schema coverage.

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 verb 'Update', the resource 'RFQ', and the scope 'in a specified Project and Contract'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_rfq_quote or update_rfq_response by specifying it updates the RFQ itself, not related entities. No tautology or ambiguity.

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 says 'Use this to update an existing Commitments' and notes 'only the supplied fields are changed', providing basic context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools for related operations (e.g., updating quotes or responses). The guidance is implied but lacks exclusion criteria.

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