update_quotation

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

The description discloses that items are replaced entirely, which is a key behavioral trait. However, no other behaviors are mentioned (e.g., partial updates, validation, permissions, side effects). With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and falls short.

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 sentence that quickly conveys the purpose, including the key nuance about item replacement. It is front-loaded and efficient, though slightly more structure could help readability.

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 33 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the overall workflow, interaction with other tools, or how inputs relate. The mention of item replacement is critical but insufficient.

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 61%, so the schema already documents many parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, such as which fields are required or how items replacement works. It provides a baseline but no extra value.

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 updates an existing quotation and specifically mentions replacing its item list. This distinguishes it from siblings like create_quotation or delete_quotation. However, the term 'manage quotation' is internal jargon and could be simplified.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_quotation or duplicate_quotation. The description implies it is for editing existing quotations but does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it.

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