Create An Electronic Signature

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

The description enriches the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false) by explicitly stating the non-idempotent behavior ('calling it again creates another record') and success response (HTTP 201 with new id). It also discloses common failure modes (401, 403, 404) and their meanings. This adds valuable behavioral context beyond the structured annotation fields.

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 reasonably concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes essential behavioral and error information without excessive verbosity. Minor grammatical awkwardness ('a Electronic Signature') and some redundancy ('allows for the creation of a Electronic Signature. Creates the electronic signature') slightly reduce clarity, but overall it's efficient and structured.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description covers key aspects: success behavior (201 with id), non-idempotency, error scenarios, required parameters, and API endpoint. However, it omits guidance on the manual signature flow (account_type='manual' and prostore_file_id), which is part of the schema and could be essential for certain use cases. This gap prevents a perfect score.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all six parameters, so the schema already documents parameter meanings and requirements. The description only reiterates 'Required parameters: object_id, object_type' without adding new details. It does not mention the optional manual account_type/prostore_file_id flow, which is described in the schema. Thus, the description contributes little beyond the schema, aligning with the baseline 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Creates the electronic signature and returns it with its new id (HTTP 201)'. This uses a specific verb (creates), names the resource (electronic signature), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'view_an_electronic_signature' and 'withdraw_an_electronic_signature'. The scope is unambiguous.

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 establishes when to use the tool: to create an electronic signature. It also notes that calling it again creates another record, clarifying non-idempotent behavior. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the create action is distinct from view/withdraw siblings, and the required parameters are listed. This provides clear context, though it could be stronger with explicit 'use this instead of...' guidance.

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