brc_update_quote

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals the key two-step confirmation behavior and warns that preflight does not equal confirmation. However, it does not disclose details about permissions required, reversibility of updates, error handling, or the return format after a successful update. The description addresses the most critical behavioral nuance but leaves 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 is four sentences long, front-loading the purpose before detailing the process. It is concise and each sentence adds value. The phrase 'Passing preflight is not confirmation' is a bit cryptic but provides important caveat. Overall, it is efficient but could be slightly more structured with a clearer separation of purpose and usage.

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 the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should cover more context. It adequately describes the main usage flow and confirmation mechanism, but does not explain what happens after a successful update (e.g., response format), what error conditions might occur, or any prerequisites like having an existing quote. The description is sufficient for the core behavior but incomplete for a full understanding.

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?

The schema description coverage is 60%, meaning most parameters are already described in the schema. The description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema: it mentions 'structured safe text/reference fields' which hints at note and reference parameters, but does not elaborate. The confirmWrite parameter's semantics are well-covered in the schema already. Thus the description adds little value 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?

The description clearly states it updates a BRC quote using structured safe text/reference fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like brc_create_quote (creates new quote) and brc_close_quote (closes quote). The verb 'updates' plus the resource 'BRC quote' is specific and unambiguous.

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 provides explicit guidance on the two-step confirmation process: first call without confirmWrite to get a payload preview, then after showing a plain-English draft to the user and obtaining explicit confirmation, retry with confirmWrite: true. It also warns that 'passing preflight is not confirmation.' However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other related tools like create or close, though this is implied by the name.

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