Update RFQ Response

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

Adds valuable context beyond annotations: partial update behavior, return value on success, and meaning of common HTTP error statuses. Annotations already state readOnly=false, destructive=false, and idempotent=true, and the description does not contradict them. Minor deduction because it calls both rfq_id and id 'parent records' when id is actually the target response being updated, which is slightly misleading.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: action, partial update behavior, prerequisites, return value, error handling, required parameters, and API context. The structure is logical and dense without 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?

For a write tool with no output schema, it covers return value, error payloads, and prerequisite resolutions. However, it does not describe the expected structure or available fields of the rfq_response object, which could be useful when constructing the request body. The schema allows arbitrary additional properties, so this is not critical, but it is a small gap.

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 the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that only intended fields should be sent, but does not clarify the roles of individual parameters beyond the schema. The schema's description for 'id' is ambiguous ('unique identifier of the Commitments resource'), and the tool description does not correct or clarify that id is the RFQ response identifier.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Update a specified Response in a specified RFQ.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_rfq_response, show_rfq_response, and update_rfq. The endpoint PATCH /rfqs/{rfq_id}/responses/{id} further confirms its scope.

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?

Explicitly instructs to send only fields to change (PATCH semantics) and directs the agent to resolve rfq_id and id with the matching list tool first. It also provides practical error-handling guidance for 401, 403, and 404 responses, which helps the agent know when to retry, check permissions, or fix identifiers.

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