Delete Quote

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value with the 'LIVE ACCOUNT ACTION' warning and the consequence that the quote can no longer be accepted, but it omits irreversibility, required permissions, and what happens to the parent RFQ.

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 short sentences with the live-account warning front-loaded, which is the right priority for a destructive tool. The second sentence is somewhat generic but still earns its place as a risk cue.

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?

For a simple two-parameter destructive delete with no output schema, the annotations plus description cover the essentials. However, an agent is left guessing about state requirements, error conditions, and the scope of impact on the associated RFQ.

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 both parameters (rfqId, quoteId) are undocumented in the schema. The description does not compensate at all, never explaining that rfqId scopes the quote or that quoteId identifies the specific quote to remove.

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 names a specific verb ('Deletes') and resource ('a quote') and states the resulting effect ('so it can no longer be accepted'), which distinguishes it from delete_rfq and cancel_order. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to delete a quote versus using delete_rfq, accept_quote, or confirm_quote. No preconditions are stated, such as whether the quote must be pending or whether an already-accepted quote can be deleted.

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