update_quote

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'Update an existing quote,' which implies the quote must already exist and that fields are modified, but it does not disclose whether updates are partial, how omitted fields are treated, or any permission requirements. This is minimal disclosure for a mutation tool.

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 or redundancy. Every word contributes to identifying the tool's purpose. It is appropriately sized for a simple update operation.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return behavior or update semantics, but it does not. It also lacks any differentiation from update_quote_status or update_quote_line_item. For an agent to use this correctly, it needs more context about what fields are mutable and what the response looks like.

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 100%, and each parameter (id, notes, valid_until) already has a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, so it neither enhances nor detracts from the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Update an existing quote' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly identifying this as the tool for modifying a quote. It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_quote_status or update_quote_line_item by targeting the quote itself. However, it does not mention which fields can be updated, so it is clear but not maximally informative.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no prerequisites, no note about partial updates, and no mention of related tools like update_quote_status or add_quote_line_item. The context is entirely implied by the tool name.

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