wafeq_quotes_update

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

Annotations already establish write, non-destructive, idempotent behavior; the description adds the PUT method and /quotes/{id}/ path, which hints at full-replacement semantics. It does not disclose effects on line items/status or retry behavior beyond what the idempotency_key schema describes, but there is no contradiction with annotations.

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?

'updates data', 'Update quote', and 'Endpoint for updating an existing quote' all restate the same idea across four short lines. The structured prefix is fine, but the redundancy means each sentence does not earn its place.

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?

This is a complex PUT operation with a nested body, required fields, status enums, and no output schema, yet the description provides no guidance on return values, validation, status transitions, or how it differs from partial_update. An agent can construct a payload from the schema but not understand the operational semantics.

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 description's only parameter contribution is signaling that id belongs in the URL path. The input schema itself documents most fields, including the detailed idempotency_key behavior, so the description does not need to repeat them; however, the body property's description 'Adds nested create feature' is not useful and no clarification is provided.

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 the operation ('updates data', 'Update quote') and the resource ('Quotes', 'existing quote'), so an agent can tell this is the update operation for quotes. It does not differentiate from wafeq_quotes_partial_update or explain full-vs-partial semantics, which keeps it from a 5.

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 only says 'Endpoint for updating an existing quote,' which implies not-create/destroy but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-to-choose-partial_update. With several sibling quote tools, especially wafeq_quotes_partial_update, the absence of exclusion/alternative guidance is a clear gap.

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