Reset estimate acceptance

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive mutation, so the safety bar is partly covered. The description adds that the operation reverses a prior customer acceptance, but says nothing about what state the estimate returns to, whether acceptance metadata (signature, timestamp, recorded deposits) is discarded, or what permissions are required.

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 with the action front-loaded and the rationale trailing; nothing is padded. Slightly more structure (e.g., an explicit state-transition note) could be added without bloat.

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-reversal mutation with no output schema, the definition covers what it does but omits the resulting estimate status and any side effects on related records (deposits, converted invoices), which are the details an agent most needs before calling it.

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 100% and there is a single required estimateId that the schema already documents, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning about the identifier's format, provenance, or what happens if the estimate was never accepted.

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+resource: undo the customer's acceptance of an estimate. It also hints at the follow-on capability (change or re-accept the estimate), which distinguishes it from wave_mark_estimate_accepted and wave_update_estimate without naming them explicitly.

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 purpose clause implies when to reach for it (when an accepted estimate must be edited or re-accepted), but there is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no named alternative such as wave_update_estimate for estimates that were never accepted.

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