cap_table_generate_cap_table_agreement_pdfGenerateCapTableAgreementPdf renders the PDF for one employee equity-grant agreement (option/rsu/rsa/fast) and stores it. Returns the S3 key. The presigned download URL is fetched via GetCapTableAgreementPdfUrl.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| companyId | Yes | UUID value wrapper. | |
| agreementId | Yes | UUID value wrapper. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| s3Key | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since annotations lack a readOnlyHint, the description appropriately discloses the side effect of storing the PDF. It also communicates the return value (S3 key) and the follow-up URL retrieval step, adding behavioral context beyond the sparse 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 sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary action and then provides essential follow-up information about the S3 key and URL retrieval, making every sentence valuable.
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 simplicity (2 required params), the presence of an output schema, and the clear coverage of purpose, side effect, and workflow, the description is largely complete. It doesn't discuss edge cases or prerequisites, but for this tool it provides sufficient context.
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 schema documentation covers 100% of the parameters with 'UUID value wrapper' descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning; it only implies agreementId through 'one employee equity-grant agreement', but this is already evident.
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 ('renders') and resource ('PDF for one employee equity-grant agreement'), lists the grant types (option/rsu/rsa/fast), and distinguishes itself by returning the S3 key. This makes it clearly distinct from sibling tools like cap_table_generate_cap_table_summary_pdf.
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?
It provides clear context on when to use the tool: to generate and store an agreement PDF, then fetch the presigned URL via GetCapTableAgreementPdfUrl. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternative tools for other PDF types, so it stops short of full usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Multiple tool pairs are nearly identical (formation_extract_cap_table / formation_extract_cap_table_ocr; formation_start_formation / formation_create_formation), and several tools lack descriptions, making selection ambiguous. The scale of 202 tools with overlapping summaries (e.g., multiple cap-table summary tools) compounds the confusion.
Dominant snake_case `module_verb_noun` pattern, but with notable deviations: `captable_send_safe_for_signature` uses an inconsistent abbreviation, `check_company_name_availability` lacks a module prefix, and `get_list_` vs `list_` prefixes are mixed. Readable but not fully consistent.
202 tools is far beyond any reasonable surface for a single server, even a broad platform. The sheer number overwhelms and makes tool discovery impractical; many tools are peripheral (ads metrics) to the core formation purpose.
The domain appears well covered: formation flows, cap-table lifecycle (import, close, simulate), accounting (journal entries, periods, schedules), cards, documents, and transactions all have CRUD or lifecycle operations. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no card deletion, no counterparty creation), but they are unlikely to cause dead ends.