add_approval_signature

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing side effects, but it merely says 'add a signature.' It does not state that this modifies the approval request, whether the operation is idempotent, or the security implications of supplying a private key. This lack of behavioral disclosure is a significant gap for a mutation tool handling sensitive key material.

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 sentence with no redundant wording, and it front-loads the main action. However, given the tool's complexity (five parameters, sensitive keys), the brevity borders on under-specification. It is concise and well-structured but sacrifices substance for brevity.

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 five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description provides only a minimal functional statement. It lacks any information about the approval workflow, return values, error conditions, or prerequisites. The description is completely inadequate for this context, especially given the sensitive nature of the operation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the five parameters, but it does not. It fails to clarify key_class, office_id, or the role of the signer_private_key and signer_public_key beyond their names. Users are left with only parameter names and no contextual meaning.

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 ('Add') and the resource ('signature' to an 'approval request'), with a specific verb and object. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_approval_request and sign_charter by specifying the unique operation. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately understandable.

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 such as create_approval_request, gateway_approve, or sign_charter. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, workflow position, or situations where another tool should be preferred. Users must infer usage context solely from the tool name.

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