brc_update_quote

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the preflight confirmation behavior, but does not detail idempotency, side effects, or error states. However, the two-step workflow is well-explained, earning a high score.

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 three sentences: purpose, workflow, warning. It is concise, front-loaded, and every sentence adds value with 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?

Given no output schema, the description lacks details on the return structure (confirmation_required, payload preview). It mentions the preview but does not describe its contents. For a 5-parameter mutation tool, more context about outputs and field effects would improve completeness.

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 60% (descriptions for id, companyName, confirmWrite). The description adds critical semantics for confirmWrite (explaining its boolean usage in the workflow), but does not elaborate on note and reference parameters. It adds value beyond schema but not fully comprehensive.

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 'Updates a BRC quote using structured safe text/reference fields,' specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like brc_create_quote and brc_close_quote by focusing on updates.

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 explicitly outlines the two-step process: first call without confirmWrite for preview, then retry with confirmWrite after user confirmation. It warns that 'Passing preflight is not confirmation,' providing 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.