Send estimate

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

Goes well past the annotations: it discloses the external side effect (email sent from Contractor Foreman), the failure mode for a customer lacking an email, and explicitly that the estimate's status does not change — a fact an agent would otherwise have to guess at, since destructiveHint=true does not imply a status mutation.

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?

Front-loads the core action in the first sentence, then adds recipients, failure mode, and the status clarification. The middle sentence is dense but each clause carries distinct information; the "as the panel's View/Email PDF does" analogy is a small redundancy for API-only agents.

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 fire-and-forget send action with no output schema, the description covers routing, failure behavior, and the state-invariance caveat. It does not say whether a success response carries a message id or delivery result, but that gap is minor.

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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter including `to`, `subject`, `message`, and `copy_me` is already documented in the schema. The description only restates the `to` default, adding no syntax or constraint detail beyond structured data, so the baseline 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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Emails the estimate as a PDF") and states the recipient scope (customer or supplied addresses). The resource is unambiguously an estimate, which separates it from send_invoice and send_change_order in the sibling list.

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?

Explains the default routing ("Without to it goes to the estimate's customer") and the blocking condition (customer without an email stops the call), and routes the status-change need to update_estimate with its enum values. It gives clear context but no explicit when-not-to-use case.

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