Get a direct link for the document owner to review a draft in QuickSign.
Returns a URL that opens the document directly in the QuickSign editor. Share this with the user so they can review the contract, add recipients, place signature fields, and send it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The document ID to get the review link for | |
| type | Yes | Whether this was a PDF or text draft |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds value by explaining what the URL does (opens in QuickSign editor, enables review/send). No contradictions; the description enriches the behavioral context beyond the 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, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by brief usage guidance. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.
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 simple read-only link generator, the description fully covers the return value (a URL), the use case (owner review), and the next steps. Combined with read-only annotations and a complete input schema, the agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly.
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 fully describes both parameters (id and type) with clear descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add extra parameter meaning, aligning with the baseline score of 3 for complete schema coverage.
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 tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Get a direct link for the document owner to review a draft in QuickSign.' It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on generating a handoff link rather than retrieving content or status.
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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: to share a review link with the owner so they can review, add recipients, place signature fields, and send. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the context is specific enough to avoid confusion with siblings.
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.
Each tool serves a clear, distinct purpose: push_draft_text creates a draft, get_draft_content retrieves its text, get_draft_status checks its lifecycle, and get_handoff_link provides a review URL. There is no overlap in their functionality or intended use cases.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: push_draft_text, get_draft_content, get_draft_status, get_handoff_link. The get_ prefix uniformly marks retrieval operations, and the naming is predictable and descriptive.
With 4 tools, the set is appropriately scoped for a focused e-signature draft workflow. Each tool covers a necessary step (create, read, status check, handoff), and no redundant or extraneous tools exist.
The core workflow of pushing a draft, retrieving it, checking status, and obtaining a review link is well covered. However, there are minor gaps: no tool for updating or canceling a draft, though the status model includes 'cancelled' as a state. These are workable gaps for typical usage.
