dealdesk.patch_quote

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the draft-only constraint (accept/decline refused) and that pricing lines are untouched, which is genuine boundary context for a mutation. But it omits auth/permission requirements, whether unspecified fields are left unchanged (patch semantics), and reversibility.

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?

Two dense sentences with the scope and the key exclusion front-loaded; no filler. Slightly terse given the 11-parameter surface, but every clause earns its place.

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 an 11-parameter, nested-object mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is only partially complete. It covers the scope and two exclusion rules but leaves snapshot object structure, nullability, auth/project-scoping, and error behavior unexplained.

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 only 18% (only status and projectId are documented), so the description should compensate more. It names five updatable field groups but omits opportunityId, accountSnapshot, and contactSnapshot, and adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema field names.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Update draft quote metadata') and enumerates the field groups affected (title, language, currency, customer snapshots, experience template). It also distinguishes itself from pricing mutations via 'does not replace pricing lines' (cf. replace_quote_items). Clear, though it does not name the sibling tools for the excluded actions.

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?

Provides when-NOT guidance ('does not accept/decline and does not replace pricing lines'), which implies which siblings to use instead. However, it names no explicit alternative tools and gives no positive when-to-use context (e.g., quote must be in draft state).

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