create_signing_linkCreate a one-hour embedded signing link for a specific recipient to open in your app or share only with them, enabling that person to sign the document.
Creates a one-hour signing link for a person with delivery EMBEDDED, to open in your own app or hand to that person. The link lets whoever has it sign as that person: share it only with them.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| returnUrl | No | ||
| recipientId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds behavior beyond the annotations: the one-hour expiry and the bearer-token security property ('whoever has it sign as that person'). The sharing warning is genuinely useful operational context. It stops short of stating single-use behavior or what happens after expiry.
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 core action and delivery mode front-loaded, followed by the security caveat. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is padded.
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?
With three parameters at 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the definition should clarify the document id, recipient id, and returnUrl semantics, and ideally what the response contains. The conceptual framing is good but the parameter-level gaps are significant for correct invocation.
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 0%, so the description must carry the burden, but it only loosely maps 'a person' to recipientId and never explains what 'id' is or what returnUrl does. The hint about opening in 'your own app' gestures at returnUrl but does not define it.
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 and resource ('Creates a one-hour signing link') plus the delivery mode (EMBEDDED) that distinguishes it from email-oriented siblings like send_document and send_from_template. An agent can identify exactly what this tool produces without opening the 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?
Implies the use case ('to open in your own app or hand to that person'), which distinguishes embedded from outbound delivery at a conceptual level. However, no sibling tool is named and there is no explicit when-not guidance, leaving the agent to infer that this is the embedded alternative to send_document.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.