Mark estimate as sent

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

The annotations already declare the mutation is non-destructive and idempotent, so the lower bar applies; the description still earns credit by disclosing the non-obvious behavior that no email is dispatched. It does not say what fields change (e.g., sentAt) or whether the send method influences later estimate state.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and immediately qualified by the key behavioral fact. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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 mutation with no output schema and reasonable annotation coverage, the definition is adequate, but it omits notable details such as how sentAt behaves when omitted and the presence of a 'WAVE' option in sendMethod that sits oddly with 'outside Wave'.

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%, with estimateId and sentAt documented inline, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning about sentAt defaults or which sendMethod values are appropriate when Wave itself was the channel, leaving the enum values to speak for themselves.

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 ('Record that an estimate was sent') and adds the constraint 'outside Wave', which implicitly distinguishes it from wave_send_estimate and wave_send_estimate_acceptance_email. It stops short of naming the sibling it differs from, but an agent can still infer the distinction from the parenthetical.

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?

'Outside Wave' hints at the condition for use, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative such as wave_send_estimate for cases where Wave should actually deliver the estimate.

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