brc_reopen_quote

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

With no annotations, the description fully explains the two-step write confirmation pattern, the need for explicit user confirmation, and the meaning of confirmWrite parameter. It is transparent about the non-trivial interaction protocol.

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?

Three sentences with clear front-loading of the action, followed by the step-by-step process. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy.

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?

The description adequately covers the core interaction pattern. It lacks details about response structure (no output schema) and prerequisites like quote state, but these are less critical given the detailed usage guidance.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds significant meaning to the confirmWrite parameter by explaining the two-step pattern and when it should be true. For id and companyName, schema descriptions suffice.

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 'Reopens a BRC quote' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like brc_close_quote (reverse action) or brc_update_quote (modification without lifecycle change).

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?

Provides explicit step-by-step instructions: first call without confirmWrite, show plain-English draft, then retry with confirmWrite only after user confirmation. Also clarifies that passing preflight does not count as confirmation, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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