create_envelope

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that signers are notified via delivery method and explains the legal weight of each security level. It also mentions plan inclusion. However, it does not disclose the return value (e.g., envelope ID) or potential asynchronous behavior, but overall it is transparent about core behaviors.

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?

The description is a single paragraph of about 100 words. It front-loads the purpose, then lists requirements, then provides security level usage. No redundant sentences; every sentence adds essential information.

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 6 parameters (including nested signers), 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the main points: what the tool does, required inputs, how to supply documents/templates, and security level guidance. It does not explain the return value or error scenarios, but given the schema's completeness, it is sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds value by explaining security levels in a use-case context and tying documentIds to upload_document. It reinforces the requirements and provides optional guidance (e.g., max length for name, but schema already has it). This goes beyond the schema alone.

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?

The description clearly states 'Create and send a new envelope for signing.' It specifies the verb (create and send), the resource (envelope), and distinguishes from sibling tools like upload_document, get_envelope, list_envelopes, and void_envelope by being the only creation tool. No ambiguity.

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?

The description explicitly states requirements (name, at least one signer, documents or templateId), how to supply documents from upload_document or templates, and provides detailed guidance on when to use each security level (STANDARD for routine, VERIFIED for employment/vendor/healthcare, CERTIFIED for real estate/high-value/regulatory). This helps the agent select the appropriate parameters.

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