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

Annotations only supply title and destructiveHint=true, so the description carries most of the burden. It adds the v2 endpoint (POST /document/recipient/create) as extra context, but never explains what is 'destructive' about this mutation, whether adding a recipient triggers a notification email, or what permission/state is required beyond 'draft'. Useful but incomplete.

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?

Two short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The endpoint sentence is arguably incidental detail, but it is cheap and does not bury the core statement.

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 no output schema and only a bare destructiveHint annotation, the description should clarify side effects (emails, document state, rollback) and required permissions. It covers what the tool does and the draft constraint but leaves the mutation's consequences unexplained.

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 schema already documents all five parameters and the role enum; the baseline is 3. The description's role list adds mild framing but actually under-covers the enum by omitting ASSISTANT, so it contributes little beyond the structured fields.

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?

Clear verb+resource ('Add a recipient') with the role set enumerated (signer, approver, viewer, CC), which tells the agent what kind of entity is being created. It does not name a sibling to differentiate from (e.g. get_recipient, distribute_document), and it omits the ASSISTANT role present in the enum, so it is clear but not fully precise.

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 phrase 'to a draft document' implies the precondition (document must still be a draft, echoed in the schema), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or pointer to alternatives such as get_recipient or distribute_document. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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