Signs a pending document for the authenticated user. Requires document ID; optionally accepts signature text.
Sign a pending document on behalf of the authenticated user.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| signature | No | Signature text (name or initials) | |
| document_id | Yes | The document ID to sign |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only provide a title, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It mentions the authenticated user as signer but does not disclose whether signing is irreversible, what permissions are required, what happens if the document is already signed, or what the result contains.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter mutation tool.
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 meaningful annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not describe side effects, permissions, error cases, or return behavior, leaving key operational context absent.
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 document_id and signature. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline of 3 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?
The description states a specific verb (sign) and resource (pending document) and adds the actor context ('on behalf of the authenticated user'). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling document tools beyond the 'pending' qualifier.
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 implies the tool is only for pending documents but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternative tools to consider. An agent must infer whether to fetch or verify a document before signing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.