portal_quote_accept

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses extensive behavior: fence-checks, delegation to C02, idempotency via key, error propagation, zero-row writes on refusal, and authentication model. This far exceeds typical transparency and leaves no ambiguity about side effects.

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 dense and technical, front-loaded with the core purpose, then elaborates on delegation, idempotency, and errors. Every sentence adds value, though it is longer than typical. The structure is logical and information-dense without being redundant, earning a 4 for efficiency despite length.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description covers essential behavioral aspects: delegation mechanism, idempotency behavior, error propagation, and workspace scope. It omits explicit return format, but the idempotency description implies success behavior. For a complex operation, this is exceptionally complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains idempotencyKey in detail (same-key re-accept returns original). It implies quoteId is the quote to accept and token is the authentication token, but does not provide explicit format or validation details. While not exhaustive, it adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare 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 the verb 'accept' and the resource 'quote' via the portal, with a use-case ID. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like quotes_accept by explicitly noting it delegates to C02's real accept and is token-authenticated pre-workspace. The purpose 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 explains when to use it (accepting a quote via portal) and provides context such as token checks, idempotency, and delegation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the pre-workspace, token-authenticated nature implicitly differentiates it from workspace-scoped accept tools. Clear usage context is present, though exclusions are not explicit.

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