accelo_redraft_signoff

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the key mutation effect — the signoff's status changes from sent back to draft — which is real added value. It is silent on side effects (recipients, attachments, notification emails), permission requirements, and reversibility (whether it can be re-sent), which matters for a state-changing tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 short lines with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The 'Args:' block is mildly redundant with the schema but not wasteful.

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?

For a single-parameter state-change tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what it does and which ID to pass. It leaves out the preconditions for the redraft, the resulting state guarantees, and any failure modes, so an agent has just enough to call it but not enough to predict the outcome.

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?

One parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. 'Args: id: Signoff ID' only restates the parameter name and a label already implied by the tool name; it adds no format, range, or sourcing detail (e.g. where to obtain the ID, whether it is the signoff or a related object's ID).

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 ('Redraft a signoff') and defines the exact state transition ('return a sent signoff to draft standing'), which is enough to separate it from accelo_send_signoff and accelo_update_signoff. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so an agent still has to infer the routing from the state semantics.

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?

Usage is implied by the state transition: use it when a signoff that was sent must go back to draft. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives such as accelo_update_signoff, and no prerequisites (e.g. permissions or whether the signoff must already be in 'sent' state).

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