Update RFQ Quote

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds valuable context: partial update semantics ('omitted fields keep their current values'), success return ('Returns the modified RFQ quote'), and detailed failure modes (401, 403, 404). This goes well beyond the 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 well-structured and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value: partial update behavior, prerequisite resolution, return value, error handling, required parameters, and API endpoint context. No filler or redundant content.

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 the tool's complexity (5 required params, nested object, no output schema), the description is thorough. It covers preconditions, update behavior, success and error responses, and API location. The return value and failure modes are adequately disclosed.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining the partial update semantics and the requirement that rfq_id and id must identify existing parent records resolved with list tools. However, it does not elaborate on the structure of the rfq_quote object beyond what the schema already states.

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 action: 'Update a specified Quote in a specified RFQ.' It uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('Quote in a specified RFQ'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_rfq_quote and show_rfq_quote by focusing on modifying an existing quote within an RFQ.

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 explicit guidance: send only changed fields, resolve parent records with the matching list tool first. It gives clear context on how to use the tool correctly, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools for different operations (e.g., creating a quote).

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