freeagent_mark_estimate_as_sent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of disclosure. It only states the action without revealing behavioral details such as whether it sends an email, requires a prior state, or has side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise, consisting of one sentence with no unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly improved by adding key behavioral context without increasing length.

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 mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context about the effect (e.g., status change, email trigger) and prerequisites. The current description is minimal and leaves the agent uncertain about outcomes.

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% description coverage for the single parameter estimate_id, which is already described as 'The estimate ID'. The tool description adds no further context, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Mark an estimate as sent in FreeAgent' clearly specifies the action (mark), resource (estimate), and target state (as sent). It distinguishes from sibling tools like freeagent_mark_estimate_as_approved, which marks a different status.

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 implies using the tool to change an estimate's status to 'sent', but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It also does not compare with alternatives like sending an invoice via email.

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