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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context by stating that email signers are created or reused for template roles. This explains a side effect beyond mere document creation, which is valuable; it stops short of describing post-creation behavior like automatic sending or persistence.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the main action and the key behavioral nuance about signer reuse in just 15 words.

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 schema comprehensively documents all 7 parameters and annotations cover the mutation profile, so the basics are in place. However, there is no output schema and the description does not hint at what the tool returns (e.g., a document ID), nor does it mention prerequisites like an existing template, leaving some operational context for the agent to infer.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides for template_id, signers, and other fields. The schema itself documents the signers reuse behavior via 'existing exact matches are reused.'

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create a document from a saved template.' The added detail about 'creating or reusing email signers for its roles' clarifies what makes this distinct from simply generating a document, though it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like send_document_for_signature.

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 states core functionality but provides no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or exclusions. It never tells an agent when to choose this over send_document_for_signature or other document-related siblings, leaving usage entirely to inference.

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