sign_charter

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a write operation but does not disclose mutability, permission requirements, effects on existing signatures, or the significance of the 'resigner_private_key' parameter (re-signing an outer envelope). The behavioral context is minimal.

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, which is concise but under-specified for a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations. It is front-loaded with the purpose but fails to provide necessary details, sacrificing completeness 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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the signing protocol, role of each key, what constitutes a 'founding signature', or the expected outcome. The agent lacks critical context to use the tool correctly.

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 only 20% (only one parameter has a description). The tool description adds no explanation of the parameters, leaving the agent to infer from parameter names alone. For example, 'signer_private_key' and 'signer_public_key' are not explained, and the existence of two key pairs (signer and resigner) is confusing.

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 a founding signature') and the target resource ('a charter'), which differentiates it from siblings like create_charter or verify_charter. However, the term 'founding signature' could be more precise, as the schema includes a 'signer_role' parameter with default 'board', not necessarily founding.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_approval_signature, or prerequisites such as requiring an existing charter. The description lacks context on the appropriate conditions for invocation.

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