dealdesk.update_quote_from_configuration

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it flags a "full commercial replace" (destructive scope), bounds the blast radius ("Does not change title/customer/ownership"), and notes quoteLayout affects presentation. It omits auth requirements and any reversibility/error behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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 tight sentences with the core action and constraints front-loaded; every clause earns its place. Slightly terse given the parameter count, but 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, and the description covers scope and non-changes well. But for an 8-parameter nested-object tool with 25% schema coverage, the parameter surface remains materially under-described.

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 description coverage is only 25% across 8 parameters. The description mentions only quoteLayout and does not explain configuration, portfolioRevisionId, priceBookRevisionId, currency, or locale, leaving most of the nested/required inputs undocumented in both places.

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?

"Re-apply a published Portfolio configuration onto an existing draft quote" names a specific verb and resource, and the phrase "onto an existing draft quote" implicitly contrasts with create_quote_from_configuration. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly name the sibling it competes with.

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 precondition "existing draft quote" narrows the applicable context, and "published Portfolio configuration" hints at required inputs. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over create_quote_from_configuration or replace_quote_items, nor any exclusion of non-draft quotes.

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