Clone estimate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely new fact beyond annotations – the copy lands as a draft – but says nothing about what is carried over (line items, customer, dates), whether a new ID is issued, or that the source is untouched, and idempotency/non-idempotency implications of repeated calls are unaddressed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, which is appropriate for a one-parameter clone. It is efficient but so terse that a brief clause on what is copied or what is returned would have been nearly free to include.

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 one-param clone with annotations carrying the safety profile, the definition is minimally sufficient to call correctly. However, with no output schema the description is the only place an agent could learn what comes back (new estimate ID? draft object?) or which fields are carried over, and it provides neither.

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 100% with a single parameter documented as 'Estimate ID', so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description only implies that this ID is the source estimate to be copied; it adds no format, prefix, or sourcing detail.

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?

Names a specific verb (copy/clone) and resource (estimate) and states the outcome state ('a new draft'), which separates it from wave_create_estimate and wave_convert_estimate_to_invoice. It does not explicitly name the closest sibling (wave_clone_invoice) or contrast the two, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied by the word 'copy' – an agent can infer 'use this when you want a duplicate rather than a fresh estimate', but nothing states when NOT to use it (e.g. converting vs cloning) or that the source estimate is left unchanged. No alternatives are named despite several adjacent estimate tools.

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