Update quote status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions that accepting opens a job and marks lead Won, but omits other status change side effects (e.g., notifications, lead updates for Decline/Expire), error handling, idempotency, or permissions. This leaves significant gaps.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence states the primary action and lifecycle path. The second adds a critical behavioral note. No redundant words.

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?

Tool is simple with 2 required parameters and no output schema. The description covers the main action and a key side effect, but lacks details on required parameters, valid transitions, error scenarios, and any constraints. Sufficient for basic understanding but incomplete for a robust agent selection.

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 0%, so the description should explain both parameters (quoteId and status). It does not mention quoteId at all and only implies status via the lifecycle but does not explicitly state that the 'status' parameter is the new value. The enum values are listed in the schema but not clarified in the description.

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 it updates the quote status through a lifecycle, and specifies valid transitions (Draft → Sent → Accepted/Declined/Expired). It distinguishes from sibling tools like quote_create, quote_list, etc., by focusing on status transitions.

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 usage for advancing quote status, which is clear from the lifecycle mention. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it, prerequisites (e.g., quote must exist), or valid transition constraints (e.g., reverse transitions possibly not allowed).

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