teamleader_quotation_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral transparency. It only says 'update' without disclosing whether this is a partial or full replacement, whether it triggers side effects like notifications, or whether certain fields are immutable. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 a single, clear sentence with no extraneous words, making it highly concise. However, its brevity borders on under-specification, as it omits any mention of the parameters or operational nuances that could aid the agent.

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 6 parameters, nested objects, and lack of output schema or annotations, the description is too sparse to be fully contextually complete. It fails to explain return behavior, idempotency, or the nature of the update, leaving significant gaps for the agent to guess.

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?

The input schema includes descriptions for all six parameters, achieving 100% coverage. The description itself adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Update an existing quotation in Teamleader Focus' clearly identifies the verb (update) and resource (quotation), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create or send. However, it offers no additional detail about which fields are affected, leaving the purpose slightly less specific than the schema could support.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like teamleader_quotation_create or teamleader_quotation_send. The only implied context is that the quotation must already exist, but there is no explicit 'use when' or 'use instead' direction.

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