Email an estimate to its customer. Automatically looks up sender and customer email addresses so you only need the estimate ID.
Email an estimate to its customer. Looks up the sender address and the customer's email automatically.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | No | ||
| subject | No | ||
| estimateId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one real behavior: sender address and customer email are resolved automatically rather than passed in. However, it omits side effects (does sending change the estimate's status or record a sent timestamp?), permission requirements, and failure modes such as a customer with no email on file.
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?
Two short sentences with no waste, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the automatic-lookup detail.
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?
This is an outbound-email mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, yet the description says nothing about side effects on the estimate record, required permissions, or error behavior. For a send action that cannot be undone, that is a meaningful gap.
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 and largely does not. It explains why sender/recipient addressing is absent from the parameter set, but estimateId, subject, and body remain undocumented — no format for estimateId, no indication whether subject/body override template defaults or are required.
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 ('Email an estimate to its customer') and adds the destination, so the agent knows exactly what happens. It is distinguishable from the sibling send_invoice by the resource itself, though the description never explicitly contrasts the two.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisites (e.g., estimate must already exist or be in an unsent/draft state), and no mention of the send_invoice alternative. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Email'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.