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

The word 'sets' makes clear this is a mutating operation, and annotations already signal non-destructive behavior (destructiveHint false). However, the description does not disclose whether an existing signatory is overwritten, whether any validation is performed, or what downstream effects the change has on formation documents.

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 fluff. It loses a point for repeating the tool name semantics ('SetAuthorizedParty sets') rather than using the space for additional distinguishing detail.

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 five parameters, nested objects, and only 40% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It leaves usage guidance, parameter semantics, and side effects unaddressed; the output schema may explain return values but does not fill these 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 40%, and the description does not compensate: it never mentions name, email, phone, title, or formationId. The term 'signatory' adds mild context that the name/title fields relate to the signer, but the meaning of email/phone/title and the relationship to formationId are left to inference from the schema.

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 identifies a specific action and resource: it sets who the authorized signatory is for formation documents, which is more precise than the title alone. It is distinguishable from sibling setters like formation_set_company_name or formation_set_state because 'authorized signatory' names a unique target, though it does not explicitly call out any sibling.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as formation_add_shareholder or formation_update_formation. The description only implies the scenario of assigning a signatory; it does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or when a different setter would be appropriate.

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