create_pdf_document

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

Without annotations, the description adequately discloses creation and sharing behavior, the need for FEA credit, and the requirement for user confirmation. However, it does not describe error handling, response format, or what happens on the server side.

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 concise (three sentences) and front-loads the core purpose. However, the safety note is placed at the end, which could be more prominent. Overall efficient but not maximally structured.

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 the tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main inputs, a conditional requirement, and a safety guideline. It lacks details about the sharing process, default values, and error conditions, making it somewhat incomplete for an agent to fully anticipate outcomes.

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 the description adds only marginal value beyond the schema. It reiterates the need for signers and placeholder values and notes the special case for signature_type, but does not provide new syntactic or structural details.

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 the tool creates and shares a new signable PDF from an existing template, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_heu_document (for other document types) and read-only tools.

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 specifies required inputs (signers, optional placeholders) and a conditional requirement (FEA credit for signature_type='fea'), and includes an explicit instruction to ask user confirmation before execution. However, it does not discuss when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_heu_document.

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