revise_quote

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the result reports pending items, but for a mutating 'record choices' operation it says nothing about whether prior decisions are replaced or appended, whether changes are reversible, permissions, or failure behavior.

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?

Extremely concise and front-loaded: two short sentences with no filler. The brevity serves efficiency, though it is arguably terse enough to slide into under-specification rather than true economy.

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 exists, so return format needn't be detailed, but the description still omits the draft_id meaning, the relationship to the surrounding quote lifecycle tools, and mutation semantics such as append vs. replace. For a required-param mutating tool with no annotations, this is a significant 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully documents the complex 'decisions' parameter as objects containing requirement_id, spec, and justification—going well beyond the schema's bare additionalProperties:string—but leaves draft_id entirely unexplained.

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?

State a verb+resource: 'Record the user's choices' tied to a decisions array. However, it never mentions the quote or draft being revised, and it doesn't distinguish itself from siblings like draft_quote, quote, or publish_quote beyond an implicit role in a decision loop.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named. The note 'Returns what is still pending' hints at an iterative decision loop but does not state when an agent should call this versus draft_quote or publish_quote.

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