wave_send_estimate_acceptance_emailSends the customer an email confirming their estimate acceptance was recorded. Use it to notify customers after acceptance; the action is irreversible.
Email the customer the confirmation that their estimate acceptance was recorded. Irreversible.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| estimateId | Yes | Estimate ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false. The description usefully adds that the action is irreversible and that an email goes to the customer, but it does not explain duplicate-send behavior, required state, or any authorization constraints beyond what the annotations provide.
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?
The description is two short sentences and front-loads the primary action. Every phrase contributes to identifying the operation or its irreversibility, with no unnecessary wording.
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 mutation with rich annotations, the definition covers the core action and irreversibility. However, it omits the prerequisite that acceptance must already be recorded and does not clarify sequencing relative to wave_mark_estimate_accepted or duplicate-send behavior.
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 100%, and the single estimateId parameter is documented as 'Estimate ID.' The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, such as whether it must reference an already-accepted estimate, so the schema baseline of 3 applies.
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: emailing the customer a confirmation that their estimate acceptance was recorded. It is clearer than the tool name alone, but it does not distinguish itself from related siblings such as wave_mark_estimate_accepted or wave_send_estimate.
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 phrase 'their estimate acceptance was recorded' implies this should be used after acceptance is recorded, but there is no explicit prerequisite, sequencing guidance, or note about when not to use it. Alternatives such as wave_send_estimate or wave_mark_estimate_accepted are not referenced.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.