freshbooks_decline_estimate

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

The description fully discloses the tool's behavior: it always fails, never sends a request, and exists only to return the reason. It explains the underlying API limitations (no declined state, no action_deny/decline counterpart, no webhook event). With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so comprehensively. No contradiction with annotations (none exist).

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 front-loaded with the key fact ('NOT SUPPORTED... always fails') and then explains the rationale and provides a call-to-action. It is slightly verbose with the detailed API explanation, but every sentence serves a purpose: it prevents the agent from expecting a plausible write and gives the reason. It is well-structured and not redundant.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is complete. It explains the tool's failure mode, the exact reason, and what the agent should do instead. An agent has everything needed to understand that calling this will return an error with the reason, and that alternatives should be sought. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with a clear description for the `id` parameter ('Estimate id'), so the schema already documents it. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, but since the tool always fails regardless of the id, parameter semantics are moot. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 exactly what the tool does: it always fails and never sends a request, and it explicitly names the resource (estimates) and the unsupported operation (decline). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like freshbooks_accept_estimate by explaining that no declined state exists in the API. The purpose is unambiguous and not a tautology.

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 description gives direct usage guidance: 'Call it to get the alternatives.' It tells the agent when to invoke it (when a decline is needed) and what to expect (the reason for failure instead of a fake write). It also implicitly warns against expecting a successful operation, which is crucial for agent behavior.

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