Fire quote (FIXED action — business)

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

The description reveals that the tool mutates state (sets columns, advances pending_action) and notes that status remains 'booking'. Annotations already mark it as non-read-only and non-destructive. The description adds context about the idempotency key parameter, which aligns with the idempotentHint false annotation properly.

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 short and to the point. The first line repeats the title unnecessarily, but the second line provides the core functionality. It is efficiently structured with minimal waste.

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 tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main behavioral effects and state changes. It does not explain failure scenarios or prerequisites (e.g., job request must be in 'booking' status), but given the detailed schema descriptions, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's purpose.

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 100%, so all parameters are described in the schema. The description adds minimal additional meaning beyond stating the overall effect (e.g., 'sets duration cols' relates to job_duration_minutes). It does not elaborate on parameter details or constraints beyond what's in the 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's action: 'Sends the quote' and specifies the exact effects (sets quoted_at + duration columns, advances pending_action to confirm_booking). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like confirmJobRequest, which handles the next step.

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 implies this tool is used after creating a job request and before confirming a booking, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like confirmJobRequest or commitJobRequestMove. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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