Send a draft for signing

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

The annotations only declare it is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive open-world write; the description adds the critical non-obvious behavior that the first invocation sends nothing and returns a summary plus a code. It does not cover what happens if the code expires, whether the send is reversible, or who exactly receives it beyond "its signers".

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?

Two tight sentences with the action front-loaded and the two-phase confirmation behavior immediately after; nothing is redundant or padded.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain the summary payload, and it covers the essential confirmation workflow for a mutation tool. The remaining gap is failure/expiry handling and the irreversibility of an actual send to real signers.

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%, and the schema already explains that confirmation should be left empty first and filled only after user consent. The description reinforces the sequencing but adds no new syntax, format, or constraint information beyond what document_id and confirmation already document.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Send a draft to its signers") and names the recipients, so the agent immediately knows this is an outbound-signing action. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling send_reminder, which is the nearest alternative, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

It gives clear procedural guidance for the two-step flow: the first call is effectively a preview, and the second call with the confirmation code performs the send only after the user has agreed. It stops short of stating when to prefer send_draft over send_reminder or what to do if the user declines.

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