Email deposit receipt

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. 'Irreversible' restates destructiveHint rather than extending it, though 'to real recipients' adds a small note that the email actually leaves the system. Nothing is said about rate limits, delivery failure behavior, or sender identity.

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 ending with the risk. There is no wasted wording, though the terseness borders on under-specification for an 8-parameter tool.

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, outbound-email tool with 8 parameters, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is thin — it omits what happens on success/failure and how optional parameters alter the message. Annotations carry the safety story, which keeps this from being inadequate, but an agent still lacks context on parameter effects.

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 38%, and the description adds no meaning for any of the 8 parameters. Optional fields with real ambiguity — attachPdf, ccMyself, subject, message, fromAddress — are undocumented in both schema and description. The description 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: email a receipt for an estimate deposit. That distinguishes it from wave_send_invoice_payment_receipt and other send tools in the sibling list. It does not, however, name or differentiate against the closest siblings (wave_send_estimate, wave_send_estimate_acceptance_email) 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance beyond the implicit 'this sends a deposit receipt.' It never states prerequisites such as the deposit needing to be recorded first, nor does it route the agent to alternatives like wave_send_invoice_payment_receipt or wave_record_estimate_deposit. 'Irreversible' warns of consequence but does not guide selection.

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