delete_signature_request_recipient

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

With no annotations present, the description carries full burden for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the basic action without revealing side effects (e.g., whether the recipient is notified, if the request is invalidated when the last recipient is removed, or any state constraints).

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, focused sentence that directly states the operation. There is no wasted wording, and the most important information is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 delete operation, the description is underspecified. There is no mention of return values, effects on the parent signature request, conditions for deletion, or any irreversible consequences. Given no annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context to make the tool fully understandable.

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 provides descriptions for all three parameters ('Signature request ID', 'Contract ID', 'Recipient ID'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no further parameter context, but since the schema already documents the identifiers, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Delete') and the two resources involved ('recipient', 'signature request'), making it distinct from sibling tools like delete_signature_request or update_signature_request_recipient. It uses a specific verb+resource pattern that leaves no ambiguity about the 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. There is no mention of when deletion is appropriate (e.g., before the request is signed, not after) or how it differs from cancel_signature_request or update_signature_request_recipient.

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