boond_quotations_update

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. 'Update an existing quotation' implies mutation but reveals nothing about partial vs. full updates, whether omitted fields are preserved, status transition constraints, side effects, or required permissions. The description is too minimal to inform an agent of consequential behaviors.

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 single sentence is concise and front-loaded with the verb and object, with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified rather than effectively structured, lacking any organization of parameter or usage information. It earns its place as a minimal summary but does not provide enough structure for a complex 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?

For an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, this is severely incomplete. An agent cannot determine which fields are updatable, whether the update is partial, what the response contains, or how this relates to boond_quotations_send. The description leaves too much to inference.

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%, meaning the description must compensate for the lack of field documentation. It does not mention any of the eight parameters or explain what they mean. Although property names like total, status, and validUntil are somewhat self-explanatory, the description provides no additional semantic value or relationships among them.

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 a specific verb ('Update') and a specific resource ('existing quotation'), making the core action unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like boond_quotations_send, but the verb choice strongly distinguishes it from search/create/get. It is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as boond_quotations_send or boond_quotations_create. It does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios where other queries are more appropriate. The only implied usage is that it modifies an existing quotation, but there is no explicit context or exclusion.

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