quotes_update

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

Adds real behavior beyond the destructiveHint annotation: patching lines triggers re-resolution and re-snapshotting 'exactly as create', which tells the agent that existing line prices are overwritten rather than merged, and two named refusal codes are disclosed. It does not say whether omitted patch fields are preserved or cleared.

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-loads the verb and resource, then qualifications, in roughly three sentences with no filler. The German/English code-switching is a minor readability wart but costs no 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?

For a nested-patch mutation with no output schema and minimal annotations, key gaps remain: whether the patch is a partial merge or a replacement of the lines array, what currency changes imply, and why idempotencyKey exists. The immutable/invalid-validity constraints are covered well, but patch merge semantics are not.

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% across 4 params including a 6-field nested patch object, so the description must carry the load. It covers contactId, lines and validUntil/intro/outro conceptually and adds re-pricing semantics, but currency, idempotencyKey and all line-level fields (itemId, taxCode, quantityMilli, unitPriceMinor, supplyDate) go unmentioned.

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 and resource ('Bearbeite eine Offerte im Entwurf') and enumerates the editable surfaces (contact, lines, validUntil/intro/outro). It is clearly a draft-quote patch tool, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling quotes_revise, so an agent cannot tell which of the two mutation paths to pick.

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 a concrete when-not condition: draft-only, with issued-or-later quotes refused as document_immutable, plus a validity_in_past refusal. It does not name an alternative (e.g. quotes_revise) for the issued-quote case, leaving the routing to the agent.

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