wafle_abandoned_send_recovery

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies idempotency mechanics ('re-sending within the cooldown window is a no-op'), the return behavior ('wafle returns the existing send id'), and that the email uses the captured address. This proactively addresses common concerns (duplicate sends) and clarifies side effects, exceeding the idempotentHint and destructiveHint annotations.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every phrase earns its place. It avoids redundancy and is compact while covering purpose, behavior, and idempotency.

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's side effect (sending email), no output schema, and 4 parameters, the description covers the main trigger, the cart pre-fill, the idempotency caveat, and the existing-send-id return path. It does not explicitly describe a successful send's return value, but the no-op case implies it returns a send id. For a non-destructive, idempotent tool, this is reasonably complete, though a one-line note on the normal response would make it fully self-sufficient.

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 75%, so the schema already documents slug, template, and coupon_code. The description helps clarify session_id as the abandoned-cart session identifier (implied by 'abandoned-cart session') but adds little else. The 'captured address' detail clarifies the email target, but template/coupon semantics remain fully in the schema. Overall, the description offers marginal additional parameter meaning.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Trigger') and resource ('recovery email to the captured address of an abandoned-cart session'), and describes the email's content (one-click recovery link with cart pre-filled). This distinguishes it from siblings like wafle_abandoned_list and wafle_checkout_cart_recover.

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 its use case (abandoned-cart recovery) but provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, no exclusions, and does not reference any sibling tools. The context is clear but there is no guidance on when this tool is preferred over similar recovery/checkout tools.

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