Update RFQ Response

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

Annotations provide basic write indicator. The description adds that only supplied fields are updated and returns the modified object, but does not disclose authentication needs, side effects, or error conditions. The inconsistency with 'Commitments' reduces clarity.

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 front-loaded with purpose and efficiently structured. However, listing all required parameters is redundant given the schema, and the extra API info is helpful but could be integrated.

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 explains the update behavior and return value, but does not describe the 'rfq_response' object structure or provide examples. Given the nested object and no output schema, it is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 description does not need to re-iterate parameter meanings. It lists required parameters but adds no new semantics, especially for the free-form 'rfq_response' object.

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 it updates a specified response in an RFQ and distinguishes from create/read siblings. However, it inconsistently refers to 'Commitments' instead of 'Response', causing minor confusion.

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 tells when to use (update existing) but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives like create_rfq_response. It does not leverage sibling information.

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