Update a quotation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which cover the safety profile. The description does not add any behavioral context beyond the update action itself, such as field overwrite semantics or required fields on update. No contradiction with annotations, but no added value either.

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 very short, but it repeats the tool name and title in the first sentence, and then repeats the same idea in the second sentence. The endpoint line is useful. Slight redundancy, but overall efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 an update tool with no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain whether the PUT replaces the entire object or merges fields, nor does it warn that omitting certain fields (like attachments) may clear them. The schema provides some guidance, but the description leaves important behavioral context unaddressed, especially for an API where PUT semantics can be non-obvious.

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 67%, meaning some parameters lack descriptions, but the tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. It does not clarify that the body must contain all required fields for the update, nor does it explain the PUT overwrite semantics. A brief param summary in the description would have compensated for the incomplete schema coverage.

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 states a clear verb ('Update') and resource ('a quotation'), further specifying 'an existing quotation by ID'. It clearly differentiates from create or get operations for quotations, and the HTTP PUT endpoint reinforces the update semantics.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_quotation or get_quotation. It does not mention that the quotation must already exist or that this tool is for modifying existing records only. The statement 'Update an existing quotation by ID' implies a precondition, but no explicit exclusions or references to sibling tools are provided.

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