dealdesk.replace_quote_items

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses replace-vs-merge semantics ('Send the full arrays you want persisted'), the draft-only precondition, and the refusal case for accepted/declined quotes. It omits permission/auth requirements and how priceConfirmations interact with the write.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the critical precondition. No filler.

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 values need not be explained. For a destructive multi-array write the description covers semantics and preconditions adequately, though a note on auth/locking or the interaction with priceConfirmations would close the remaining 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 only 33% across 6 params. The description names lineItems, options, and groups and clarifies they are full-replacement arrays, which adds real value, but leaves the shape of those free-form objects, plus projectId/quoteId and priceConfirmations, undescribed beyond the sparse schema.

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 ('Replace draft quote lineItems, options, and groups') and names the exact entities affected, so it is distinguishable from generic quote tools like patch_quote. It stops short of naming which sibling to use instead when the quote is not a draft or not classic authoring.

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?

Gives clear applicability context: draft-only, refused for accepted/declined quotes, and 'classic authoring'. The parenthetical implies a contrast with configuration-based authoring tools but never names an alternative such as update_quote_from_configuration or patch_quote.

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