update_signature_request_recipient

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'Update', which is already in the tool name, and provides no information about side effects, permissions, reversibility, or constraints (e.g., whether the recipient has already signed). This is essentially a non-disclosing tautology.

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 with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the verb and object. However, it is so minimal as to be almost tautological, but that is more a purpose issue than a conciseness issue; the structure itself is clean and quick to read.

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?

With 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not state that the tool updates the recipient's name/email, what the required IDs are for, or any preconditions or effects. The schema provides some parameter context, but overall the agent cannot fully understand the tool's purpose or usage flow from the available information.

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 covers 100% of the parameters with individual descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. The optional 'name' and 'email' fields are self-explanatory in the schema, but the description does not clarify how they relate to the recipient update.

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 'Update a recipient for a signature request' is a near-verbatim restatement of the tool name 'update_signature_request_recipient'. It provides the verb and resource but adds no additional specificity, such as which recipient fields can be changed, and does not differentiate itself from sibling tools beyond what the name already implies.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool, prerequisites, or conditions (e.g., whether the signature request must be in a particular state). It also does not mention alternatives like create_signature_request_recipient or delete_signature_request_recipient. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name and schema.

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