Send a document

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

Adds real behavior beyond annotations: send=true triggers immediate e-mails to recipients, the no-fields path defers placement to the console, and the result carries a link for that. It also warns to confirm with the user before sending. Annotations (openWorldHint, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false) cover the safety profile, but the description doesn't address whether a created document can be cancelled/replaced or what rate/size constraints apply beyond the schema's maxItems.

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?

Front-loaded with the upload-then-create action, then the two variants for placing signature boxes, then the send-vs-console decision. Four tight sentences, no preamble, no repetition of title or schema fields.

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 10 parameters, nested recipient/field objects, 20% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the core creation flow and the send/console fork but leaves recipient roles, routing/signing order, expiry, and message semantics entirely to the schema. Adequate to call the tool in the simple case, thin for the richer one.

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 only 20%, and the description compensates well for the highest-risk parameters: it explains that files are joined in order, that signature boxes come from {{sig:1}} tags or the fields argument, and that field coordinates use a top-left origin. However, it says nothing about recipients (role, routingOrder, delivery, language), signingOrder, message, expiresInDays, or externalRef, leaving much of a 10-parameter tool undocumented in both schema and description.

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 pair: uploads local files and creates a document for signature, with the accepted formats (PDF, PNG/JPEG page photos, joined in order) spelled out. This implicitly but clearly separates it from send_from_template and send_draft, which reuse existing content rather than uploading new files.

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?

Explicitly branches on conditions: send=true e-mails recipients right away (with an instruction to confirm with the user first), and when no {{sig}} tags or fields exist, use send=false and let the user place boxes in the console. Both the when and the when-not are stated with concrete alternatives.

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