Record estimate deposit

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

The annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the deposit is external to Wave and that paymentAccountId must be a CASH_AND_BANK account, which is useful constraint context, but it says nothing about what happens to the estimate's balance or status, or that retries can create duplicates.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the account constraint placed second. No filler, though the parenthetical '(a CASH_AND_BANK account)' is slightly bare and could be phrased more explicitly.

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 six-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the core intent and the key account-type constraint. It is still thin on effects (estimate status/balance changes), on what a successful call returns, and on whether memo is optional, which an agent would want before calling.

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 50%, so several parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description compensates for paymentAccountId by explaining it is the destination account and must be of type CASH_AND_BANK, which is genuinely useful, but memo and the paymentMethod enum get no added meaning 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Record a deposit ... against an estimate') plus a scope qualifier ('received outside Wave') that separates it from invoice-payment and deposit-update siblings. It stops short of naming the sibling tools it should be preferred over, but an agent can still tell what it does without opening the schema.

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?

'Received outside Wave' implies the use case (manual recording of an off-platform payment), which is real guidance but only implicit. There is no explicit when-not guidance or reference to alternatives such as wave_record_invoice_payment or wave_update_estimate_deposit, so the agent has to infer routing.

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