cancelQuote

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

With no annotations, the description adds value by stating a rate limit (50 requests/second) and the behavior that using rfqId cancels all quotes for that RFQ. However, it does not disclose other traits like irreversibility, authorization needs, or error conditions.

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 mostly concise but includes redundant agent hint that repeats the parameter info. The rate limit note is helpful but could be integrated more efficiently. Overall, it is adequate but not tight.

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 no output schema, few parameters, and no annotations, the description covers basic usage and one behavioral note, but is incomplete regarding success/error responses, prerequisites, or broader context. It is minimally viable.

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%, so the description compensates by explaining the three parameters (quoteId, rfqId, quoteLinkId), their priority order, and the special behavior of rfqId. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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?

The description clearly states the tool cancels an active quote, using a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like cancelAllQuotes or cancelRfq, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 description includes a note on parameter requirements and priority order, but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., cancelAllQuotes). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use context.

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