dealdesk.refresh_quote_preset_prices

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses that line discounts are preserved, that only stale basic prices are refreshed, and that existing quotes are not mutated. Missing only auth/permission expectations and any failure behavior, which is a modest gap 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?

Four tight sentences, each carrying a distinct fact (what changes, what is preserved, default scope, blast radius), with the core action front-loaded. Nothing is redundant and nothing is padding.

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?

An output schema exists so return shapes need no explanation, and the description covers the side-effect profile (discounts retained, quotes untouched, stale-only scope) that matters for a 3-param mutation. It is nearly complete, short only on permission/authorization context.

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 67% and the description reinforces lineIds semantics by tying 'omit' to the entire stale set, adding the concept of staleness that the schema does not state. presetId and projectId carry no additional meaning in the description, so it neither compensates for nor undermines the partial coverage.

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 (update/refresh), a specific resource (stored unit prices on a quote preset), and the source of truth (the published portfolio basic price). This clearly separates it from the broader patching siblings, but it never names patch_quote_preset or explains how the two relate.

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?

'Omit lineIds to refresh every stale line' gives a concrete call pattern, and 'Does not change existing quotes' bounds scope. However, it never says when an agent should reach for this instead of patch_quote_preset or apply_quote_preset, so the choice among siblings is left to inference.

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