resend_signature_request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It says 'Resend' but does not explain the side effects, such as sending another email to recipients, whether it requires an active request, or if it is idempotent. This is a mutation tool with zero behavioral context.

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 extremely concise—one short sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the action and resource, and every word earns its place. There is no verbose filler or unnecessary detail.

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 the tool has two parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally viable but incomplete. It explains the core action but omits crucial context such as what happens when resending (e.g., new notification sent), any state restrictions, or what the response contains. This falls short for a mutation tool.

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 already provides descriptions for both parameters (request_id and contract_id), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies. The agent can rely on the schema for parameter semantics.

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 'Resend a signature request' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly identifying the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_signature_request, cancel_signature_request, and list_signature_requests by indicating a unique 'resend' action.

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 versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., an existing signature request), exclusions, or scenarios where resending is appropriate. Sibling tools exist for other actions, but no comparative context is given.

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