quotes_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that line re-pricing re-resolves and re-snapshots exactly as create, and explains two refusal conditions: document_immutable (tax/total freeze) and validity_in_past. These are non-obvious behaviors. However, it omits idempotency behavior (despite an idempotencyKey parameter) and whether patch is a partial or full replacement, leaving 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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. It mixes German and English, which is slightly awkward but not confusing. The key details are packed into a single sentence, and the behavioral notes are placed after the primary actions. No wasted words, but the language mixing detracts slightly.

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?

For a complex update tool with a nested patch object and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It covers the main constraints but misses idempotency behavior, whether patch is partial, return value expectations, and general error handling beyond the two specific refusals. Given the tool's complexity and lack of annotation coverage, more detail is needed for an agent to call it correctly.

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 mentions contact, lines, and validUntil/intro/outro, but does not explain currency, idempotencyKey, or the structure of the lines array (e.g., quantityMilli, unitPriceMinor). It also fails to clarify whether patch is partial, which is critical. The description covers only a subset of parameters and provides limited semantic depth.

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 tool edits a quote in draft (Bearbeite eine Offerte im Entwurf) and lists specific actions: retitle contact, re-price lines, set validUntil/intro/outro. It also explicitly limits to draft-only, distinguishing it from issued-quote operations. This makes the purpose unambiguous and separates it from siblings like quotes_create or quotes_send.

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 explicitly states the tool is draft-only and explains that A10 refuses patches on issued quotes, giving a clear condition for use. However, it does not name an alternative tool for issued quotes (e.g., quotes_revise) nor explicitly say 'use X for issued quotes', so while the context is clear, the guidance could be more direct.

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