publish_quote

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses important behavior: it builds cards, saves a list, verifies on the website, returns a link, requires login, and notably warns that a failed check deletes the list. It stops short of covering permissions beyond login, idempotency, or rate limits.

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 tight sentences. The core action and workflow come first, followed by the prerequisite and destructive-failure warning. There is no wasted text.

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?

The output schema likely covers the returned link, and the description adequately explains the publish workflow, login need, and destructive failure mode. However, for a four-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the missing parameter semantics leave a meaningful completeness 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 description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain draft_id, name, currency, or settlement. 'Draft' and 'totals' provide only faint contextual hints, leaving all four parameter meanings undocumented in natural language.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Publish a fully decided draft', and summarizes the workflow (builds cards, saves list, verifies, returns link). It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like draft_quote or revise_quote, but the phrase 'fully decided draft' implies the post-drafting stage.

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?

It gives clear prerequisites ('Needs a login (auth_login)') and a user-interaction rule ('Confirm the totals with the user first'). It does not explicitly say when to use this versus draft_quote or revise_quote, so there is room for stronger sibling routing.

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