accelo_send_signoff

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it flags this as a client-facing write, explains what actually happens (an approval request is dispatched to recipients), and imposes a confirmation requirement. It omits idempotency/reversibility and whether the signoff becomes immutable after sending.

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 short units — action, the emphasized write warning, and the arg — with the blast-radius warning front-loaded where an agent will see it. No filler.

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-param, no-output-schema mutation, the description covers purpose, client-facing impact, and the confirmation requirement. Missing are post-send state (does it lock the signoff?) and error conditions, but the critical operational context is present.

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 0% and the description supplies 'id: Signoff ID', which is more than the bare schema title 'Id'. With only one parameter, baseline is 4; the label adds modest meaning (it identifies which signoff record) but no format or sourcing guidance, so 3.

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 (send) and resource (signoff) with an explicit object (its recipients). Clearly distinguishable from siblings like update_signoff, redraft_signoff, create_signoff_recipient — none of which dispatch the signoff.

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 a clear condition ('dispatches an approval request to recipients, typically clients') and an explicit pre-call action ('Confirm with the user before calling'). It doesn't name an alternative sibling or state when NOT to use it, but the guidance is actionable.

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