Update estimate deposit

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description does not disclose the critical behavioral question for this mutation — whether omitted fields (memo, amount, paymentDate, paymentMethod, paymentAccountId) are preserved or cleared — nor any permission or side-effect context. The 'manually recorded' qualifier is the only added behavioral constraint.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of waste, which is structurally clean. However, at this length the brevity reads as under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness for a 7-parameter destructive mutation.

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, multi-field update with no output schema and only 57% schema coverage, one sentence leaves out partial-vs-full update semantics, field-level effects, and error conditions. An agent could invoke it but could easily clear fields it intended to leave untouched.

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 57%, leaving id, memo, paymentMethod, and paymentAccountId partially or entirely undocumented, and the description compensates for none of it. It adds no meaning about which parameters are editable, what happens to paymentAccountId, or how amount formatting is handled beyond the schema's own pattern.

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 ('Change') and resource ('estimate deposit') and adds a meaningful scope qualifier ('manually recorded'), so an agent knows this modifies an existing deposit record rather than creating or deleting one. It does not name near-neighbors such as wave_record_estimate_deposit or wave_update_estimate_payment, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no statement of when this tool should be avoided in favor of wave_record_estimate_deposit or wave_delete_estimate_payment. The only implied guidance comes from the word 'Change' and the 'manually recorded' qualifier.

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