wave_send_estimate

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the sending action without mentioning side effects (e.g., whether the estimate's status changes to 'sent'), permission requirements, or whether the operation is reversible. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. It is appropriately sized for a straightforward tool, though it could benefit from additional context without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It doesn't clarify email configuration (e.g., whether 'message' and 'subject' override defaults), relationship to the customer's default email, or any confirmation/error feedback. The tool's complexity demands more detail.

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% with descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it simply says 'to the customer' while the schema allows multiple recipients via 'to' array. This is a minor mismatch, but overall the schema adequately documents parameters.

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 'Send an estimate to the customer via email' clearly states the action (send), the resource (estimate), and the medium (email). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'wave_send_invoice' or 'wave_convert_estimate_to_invoice' by specifying the object and action.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. There's no indication of prerequisites (e.g., estimate must be in a specific state), when to use this tool vs. alternatives like 'wave_convert_estimate_to_invoice', or any restrictions (e.g., email limits). The agent is left to guess the appropriate context.

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