quotes_expire_sweep

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool mutates quote states (transitions to expired), returns a count { expired: N }, and is a no-op when nothing is past validity. It also explains the business rationale (preventing dead offers from being counted). It does not mention idempotency, permissions, or error conditions, but the core behavior is well covered.

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 begins with a German phrase that adds little value and could confuse non-German-speaking agents. The English portion is informative but not tightly structured; the key purpose is stated, but the German preamble and the explanatory clause about lists and forecasting could be trimmed for clarity. It is not as concise as it could be.

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 that there is no output schema, the description explicitly states the return format ({ expired: N }) and the no-op case. It specifies the exact condition for expiration (sent quotes past valid_until) and the downstream effect. Missing details include error handling, rate limits, or whether the operation is scoped to a single workspace, but the core execution context is adequately described.

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 0% and the description does not mention workspaceId or idempotencyKey at all. The agent must infer that workspaceId scopes the operation and idempotencyKey ensures safe retries. This is a significant gap since the description should compensate for the lack of schema details.

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 action: transition sent quotes past their valid_until to expired. It specifies the resource (quotes), the condition (past valid_until), and the outcome (expired status). This distinguishes it from siblings like quotes_revise or quotes_update, which handle individual quote modifications rather than bulk expiration sweeps.

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 notes that it is 'Agent-scheduled' and that the Studio list triggers the same verb lazily, implying it is intended for scheduled, automated use rather than manual invocation. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using it or mention alternative tools for individual quote expiration, leaving the routing decision partially to inference.

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