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

Adds real behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation: 'This emails real people' warns the agent that this has an outward-facing side effect on external parties. It stops short of stating permission requirements, rate limits, or what happens to recipients who have already signed.

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 tight sentences with the action and precondition front-loaded before the side-effect warning. The trailing 'Documenso v2: POST /document/redistribute' is marginally useful endpoint mapping but slightly dilutes an otherwise lean description.

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 2-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers action, precondition, side effect, and endpoint. It omits state edge cases (e.g., resending after signing or completion) and permission requirements, which would matter for a destructive call.

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% – documentId and recipients are both documented in the schema. The description's 'named recipients' phrasing adds only marginal color over 'The numeric recipient ids to email again', so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Resend the signing invitation' to 'named recipients'. The qualifier 'of an already-sent document' cleanly separates it from the sibling documenso_distribute_document (initial send) without the agent needing to open either 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?

The 'already-sent document' precondition gives clear context for when this applies versus an initial distribution. It does not explicitly name documenso_distribute_document as the alternative for unsent documents, so the routing is inferable rather than stated.

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