uof_custom_sign_next

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that site_id/node_seq/signer_guid cannot be obtained from query APIs and must come from form workflow design. This adds valuable behavioral context beyond the schema. No contradiction.

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 concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by usage guidelines, and a note about parameter source. No redundant sentences.

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 parameter count (4 required) and the presence of an output schema (though not shown), the description covers the essential information. It could mention expected outcomes or error conditions, but overall it is complete for the tool's purpose.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that site_id/node_seq/signer_guid are from backend design and not queryable, which goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 ('push the fixed-process form to the next station and specify the approver') and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'terminate_task' by specifying that this tool is only for fixed-flow forms.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (only for backend-designed fixed-flow forms) and when not to (free-flow forms), and provides an alternative tool ('terminate_task').

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