Sign — Envoyer un code de vérification (SMS)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action of sending an OTP but omits behavioral details such as side effects (SMS sent), prerequisites (e.g., document must exist), rate limits, error conditions, or whether it returns a confirmation. This lack of transparency is significant for a mutation tool.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality. No redundant or extraneous information.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the basic purpose but lacks details on error handling, prerequisites, and what happens upon success/failure. For a sensitive SMS-sending tool, more information would be expected to ensure safe and correct usage.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameter descriptions are already present. The description adds contextual purpose ('to the signer for identity verification') but does not enhance the meaning of individual parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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?

The description clearly states it sends an OTP via SMS to the signer for identity verification before signing. The verb 'envoie' and specific resource 'code OTP par SMS' make the purpose unambiguous and distinguishable from sibling tools like sign_send_for_signature and sign_verify_otp.

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 context ('avant la signature'), indicating this tool is used before the signature step. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving partial clarity.

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