Email estimate

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and non-idempotent, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description still adds genuine value beyond them: that the send reaches external real recipients, that it is irreversible, and that the estimate must be approved first. It omits what happens on partial failure or whether a resend is blocked.

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?

Three short sentences with the action and the irreversible warning front-loaded; nothing is buried. 'Through Wave' is the only near-filler phrase.

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 destructive, externally-visible send the description covers the critical risk and precondition, and no output schema means returns need not be explained. However, with 7 of 9 parameters undocumented and no explanation of how subject/message/attachment options affect the email, the definition is not fully complete for a call of this complexity.

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 only 22% across 9 parameters; seven of them (message, subject, ccMyself, attachPDF, fromAddress, hideGrandTotal, includeAttachments) are undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds no meaning about recipient limits, subject/message behavior, or attachment toggles, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Specific verb ('Email') plus resource ('an estimate') plus the external-effect scope ('to real recipients'). It does not explicitly separate itself from nearby siblings such as wave_send_estimate_acceptance_email or wave_generate_estimate_pdf, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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?

Provides a real prerequisite ('The estimate must be approved') and a pre-call caution ('confirm recipients first'), which tells the agent when the call is valid. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it (e.g., use the acceptance-email tool for a different flow).

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