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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true, so the description should carry more of the behavioral load. It does add that distribute_document=true sends immediately while false creates a draft, but that same fact is already stated in the schema, and it never explains what is destructive (template placeholder consumption, irreversible send, permission needs).

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the actionable prerequisite and toggle. The trailing 'Documenso v2: POST /template/use' endpoint note is marginal value for an agent choosing a tool but does not bloat the text.

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 5-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, prerequisite lookup, and the immediate-send toggle, which is most of what an agent needs. It leaves the destructive consequence of the operation and error behavior unstated, but the core call path is complete.

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 every parameter, including recipient id/name/email and the folderId/externalId fields. The description adds only the cross-tool hint that recipient ids come from the template placeholders, which is useful but not beyond the baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new document from an existing template') and immediately narrows the scope with 'filling in the real recipients'. This distinguishes it from siblings like documenso_duplicate_document and documenso_create_folder without the agent opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite workflow: 'Call documenso_get_template first to read the placeholder recipient ids', and clarifies the distribute_document toggle for immediate sending. It stops short of naming when to prefer duplicate_document or add_recipient instead, so it is clear context rather than a full routing rule.

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