Withdraw An Electronic Signature

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint true), the description adds partial-update semantics ('Send only the fields you intend to change'), return behavior ('Returns the modified electronic signature on success'), and common HTTP error statuses. This is valuable context for an agent anticipating side effects and error handling.

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 moderately long but packs several distinct pieces of information: purpose, usage, error handling, and API endpoint. Each sentence provides actionable detail without redundancy.

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?

The description covers prerequisites, return values, failure modes, and required parameters. Combined with the schema and annotations, it gives an agent almost everything needed to invoke this tool correctly, including the PATCH endpoint and API area.

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 schema already documents all parameters with 100% coverage, so the description can focus on usage. It adds guidance on the required parameter and how to resolve it ('resolve it with the matching list tool first'), plus the partial-update behavior that clarifies how fields are applied.

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 action 'withdraw an Electronic Signature' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like view_an_electronic_signature and create_an_electronic_signature by focusing on the withdrawal operation.

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 instructs to resolve electronic_signature_id with the matching list tool first, establishing a clear prerequisite. It does not explicitly name alternative tools to use instead, but the context around resolving existing records and error conditions provides sufficient guidance.

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