wafle_checkout_order_resend_email

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

The description claims 'Idempotency-keyed by template+public_id+timestamp so retries don't double-send within the same minute,' which directly contradicts the annotation idempotentHint=false. This is a significant inconsistency that misleads the agent about replay safety. The default template addition does not remedy the contradiction.

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?

Two concise, front-loaded sentences. The main action is stated first, followed by essential default and idempotency details. No fluff or redundant information.

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?

The description covers the core action, default template, and idempotency behavior, but with no output schema and minimal annotations, it omits response format, error conditions, or required permissions. The contradiction with idempotentHint also undermines completeness. It is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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 only 33% (only slug has a description). The description does not compensate by explaining order_id or template beyond repeating the default already present in the schema. It adds no new semantic meaning for the parameters, leaving the agent without guidance on the non-obvious order_id accepted types or template format.

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 the action: 'Resend a transactional email tied to an order.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the scope is distinct from sibling tools like wafle_checkout_order_get or wafle_abandoned_send_recovery. The default template mention adds specificity.

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 clearly implies the tool's use case (resending order emails) and provides the default template context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as when not to use it (e.g., for abandoned carts). The idempotency note gives practical usage guidance but no comparative guidance.

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