Update RFQ Quote

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, etc. The description adds that only supplied fields are changed (partial update) and returns the modified object. No contradiction with annotations. It does not discuss side effects or auth needs, but annotations reduce the burden.

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: a few sentences covering purpose, usage, return value, required parameters, and API reference. No wasted words; well-structured and front-loaded with key 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?

Given full input schema descriptions and annotations but no output schema, the description adequately explains the update behavior, partial update, and return of modified object. It could mention error handling but is sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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 description coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying which parameters are URL path (rfq_id, id) and which are request body (project_id, contract_id, rfq_quote), providing structure beyond the schema descriptions.

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 'a specified Quote in a specified RFQ', and specifies it updates an existing Commitments with partial updates. It also includes the API endpoint, distinguishing it from similar tools like create_rfq_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?

The description indicates when to use the tool ('Update a specified Quote in a specified RFQ') and lists required parameters. It implies usage for existing quotes, but does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it. Still, the context is clear.

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