Mark estimate accepted

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds essentially nothing beyond that: it does not say what the write changes downstream, whether any notification or invoice state is affected, or what happens if the estimate was already accepted (the idempotent hint implies a no-op, but the text never confirms it).

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with zero filler or repetition. Its brevity is appropriate, though it leaves useful context unstated rather than being over-long.

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 one-parameter state-transition tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the definition is minimally adequate. It still leaves the agent guessing about required estimate state, error conditions, and any side effects of the acceptance write.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema coverage, so the schema already documents estimateId fully; baseline 3 applies. The description adds no format, source, or lookup hint (e.g., where to obtain the estimate ID) beyond the schema.

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 gives a clear verb ('Record') and resource ('the estimate') plus the domain fact being recorded (customer acceptance), so the action is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as wave_approve_estimate or wave_reset_estimate_acceptance, which an agent could easily confuse with this state transition.

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 guidance on when to call this versus wave_approve_estimate, wave_reset_estimate_acceptance, or wave_send_estimate_acceptance_email. The description also omits any precondition, such as whether the estimate must be in a sent/pending state first.

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