update_sales_quotation

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

Annotations already flag destructive and non-read-only behavior. The description adds that item lines, party, order number, and narration are replaced, which is useful destructive context, but the promised 'matching/collision caveats' are only referenced, not disclosed. It neither contradicts annotations nor fully explains the destructive matching behavior.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler, front-loading the core action and affected fields. The second sentence is economical but pays for its brevity by leaning on sibling references instead of stating the caveats inline.

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 destructive update with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description needs to state matching/collision behavior concretely; instead it defers entirely to update_sales_order, whose description is not provided. The schema mitigates some gaps, but the agent still cannot know what collisions may occur or how the update resolves them.

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 the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds the useful grouping that these are the same fields as create_sales_quotation plus voucherNumber, and that item lines are replaced, but it does not add per-parameter meaning beyond 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?

States a specific verb (Update), a specific resource (existing Sales Quotation in TallyPrime), and the fields affected (item lines, party, order number, narration). It differentiates from create_sales_quotation by noting the added voucherNumber and from update_sales_order by name, so an agent can route correctly.

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 intended use is implied by 'Update an existing Sales Quotation' and the comparison to create_sales_quotation, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance. The reference to 'same matching/collision caveats as update_sales_order' assumes knowledge of another tool's description rather than stating the conditions.

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