teamleader_quotations_update

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

No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose whether the update replaces the entire line_items array or merges with existing items. It also omits side effects like permissions, idempotency, or return values, leaving critical behavioral ambiguity.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It is as concise as possible while still conveying the core purpose, making it easy to parse.

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?

Given the absence of annotations and output schema, and the nested structure of line_items, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the replacement semantics, prerequisites (e.g., draft status), or any constraints, leaving the tool under-specified for reliable use.

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 only restates the parameter name 'line items' without adding semantic detail. It fails to clarify that the id parameter identifies the quotation and whether line_items represents a full replacement or an incremental update.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and targets a specific resource ('quotation's line items'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling quotation tools such as create, send, and accept. It is unambiguous about the tool's primary function.

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 usage guidance or alternatives are provided; the intended use is implied by the verb and resource. It does not state when a quotation can be updated or warn against using create instead, though the purpose is fairly obvious from the name and description.

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