pdf_request_signature

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose the critical irreversible side effect: the document is locked with no further edits. It also explains the signing ceremony (user reviews and types their own full legal name). It stops short of covering what happens on cancel, whether the call blocks until the user acts, or what user_id controls.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its lock side effect before placement mechanics and the follow-up export call. Every sentence carries information the schema or annotations do not.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the lock, the ceremony, placement semantics, and the next step. Gaps remain around doc_id/user_id meaning and failure or cancellation behavior for a multi-step, stateful operation.

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 reported as 0% at the top level, so the description must compensate, and it does for placement: it explains the two mutually exclusive forms (a signature field name vs. {page, x, y}), the coordinate space (origin bottom-left, points), and the flat-PDF case. It leaves doc_id and especially user_id entirely unexplained.

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+resource (hand a filled PDF over for signing) and immediately scopes it, distinguishing it from the assistant-side siblings by declaring that signing can never be performed by the assistant. It also names the related tools pdf_open and pdf_export, so an agent can place it in the workflow without 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 clear sequencing guidance: use it on a filled document and call pdf_export afterwards to deliver the signed file, with placement sourced from pdf_open's fields[]. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with an alternative signing path beyond the implicit 'assistant cannot sign' rule.

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