Email an estimate to a customer by providing the estimate ID. Automatically resolves sender and recipient addresses from your invoice system.
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?
Annotations already disclose idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by stating that the sender address and customer's email are resolved automatically, which helps the agent understand that no such fields need to be provided. It does not mention failure modes or success confirmation, but the bar is lowered because of the annotations.
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 a single, tightly written sentence with no filler. The core action and the notable automatic-lookup behavior are both front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 simple send tool, the description covers the essential action and the main hidden behavior (automatic address lookup), and the annotations provide the safety context. Yet with no output schema, the agent gets no guidance on return values, and the optional body/subject parameters are not contextualized, leaving minor but real gaps.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate, but it does not explain body, subject, or estimateId in any meaningful way. The phrase 'Email an estimate to its customer' only hints that estimateId identifies the estimate; the optionality and purpose of body and subject are left entirely to the agent.
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 ('Email'), a specific resource ('an estimate'), and the target recipient ('its customer'), making the action unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling send_invoice, though the resource term 'estimate' implicitly separates them.
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 implies usage when an estimate needs to be emailed to its customer. It does not, however, provide any exclusions or contrast with sibling tools such as send_invoice or convert_estimate_to_invoice, leaving routing decisions to the agent's inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.