quotes_expire_sweep

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

Adds real context beyond destructiveHint=false: the bulk scope (all sent quotes past valid_until), the exact state transition, the lazy Studio trigger, and the return shape { expired: N }. It does not say whether expiry is reversible or what permissions/statuses gate it, and nothing contradicts the non-destructive annotation.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and behavior in a few dense sentences. The German opening clause duplicates the English that immediately follows, costing a bit of space without adding information.

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?

Though there is no output schema, the description supplies the return value and no-op case, and explains the sweep model, which covers most of what an agent needs. Missing pieces are idempotencyKey semantics and whether an expired quote can be reopened.

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 carry the burden for the two parameters, and it says nothing about workspaceId scoping or what idempotencyKey does on repeat calls. Only scope-by-validity is implied, which is not a parameter.

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?

States a specific verb (transition to expired) plus the exact resource and scope: every sent quote past its valid_until. An agent can tell it apart from the manual siblings (quotes_accept, quotes_decline, quotes_convert, quotes_revise) without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear operating context: agent-scheduled sweep, and the Studio list triggers the same verb lazily, so an agent knows it need not run this for list correctness. Also states 'a no-op when nothing is past validity', which is useful before-call guidance, but no alternative or exclusion is named.

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