sign-pdf

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the key side effect of sending emails, which is important. However, it does not mention any authentication requirements, whether the tool modifies the original PDF, or what happens to the PDF after the request is created. The disclosure is present but incomplete.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It includes an important clarification about email delivery in parentheses. No unnecessary words or repetition of schema details.

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 tool has 10 parameters and no output schema, so the description should add context about return values or follow-up actions. It does not explain what the agent can expect in response (e.g., a request ID) or how to track the request, despite sibling tools like get-signature-status implying a status-check flow. The description is adequate for a basic understanding but lacks forward-looking context.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the schema itself provides adequate parameter semantics. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information, but given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate. It correctly identifies the core semantic of file and signers via the overall purpose.

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 ('Create') and the resource ('a digital signature request for a PDF document'), with a parenthetical that it sends requests via email. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get-signature-status and void-signature, which handle other stages of the signature lifecycle.

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 implies usage context: when you need to send a PDF for digital signature. It clearly indicates the email-sending side effect, which helps the agent understand the tool's purpose. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, such as when only checking status or voiding a request.

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