signature_create_envelopeOpen a multi-signer signature envelope for an already-created company document. Prefer the composite signature_send_document_for_signature tool; this low-level primitive never returns signing tokens.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| signers | No | ||
| envelope | Yes | ||
| accessCode | No | ||
| documentS3Key | No | ||
| documentS3Bucket | No | ||
| reminderIntervalDays | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| envelopeId | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it states the tool is a low-level primitive and that it never returns signing tokens, which is a useful caveat. Annotations only declare openWorldHint and destructiveHint, so the description partially covers the behavioral burden, though it does not mention side effects like email sending or state changes.
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, fully front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by usage guidance. Every sentence adds value with no fluff.
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 is short but covers core purpose and a key caveat. However, the tool has 6 parameters, nested structures, and an output schema (not shown). It does not mention prerequisites (other than already-created document), expected state transitions, or error behavior. Given the complexity, a bit more context would be helpful.
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 0% and the description does not explain any parameters. The tool name and phrase 'multi-signer signature envelope' hint at signers and envelope, but the description does not clarify key fields like documentS3Key, accessCode, or envelope structure. The schema is complex with nested objects, yet the description offers no compensation.
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 ('Open') and resource ('multi-signer signature envelope') and clarifies the prerequisite ('already-created company document') and the level ('low-level primitive'). It clearly distinguishes itself from the preferred composite tool, signature_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 explicitly instructs to prefer the composite tool signature_send_document_for_signature when possible, and notes that this tool never returns signing tokens. This provides clear 'when to use vs alternative' guidance and warns about a limitation.
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.