sign_document

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

With no annotations and a minimal description, behavioral traits are undisclosed. Key aspects like whether signing modifies the document permanently, error handling for invalid certificates, and support for multiple signatures are missing.

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 very short (one sentence) and concise, but it lacks front-loading of critical information. While it avoids verbosity, it is underspecified and does not efficiently convey essential usage details.

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 (9 parameters, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain return values, side effects, or the purpose of optional parameters, leaving significant gaps for effective use.

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%, and the tool description provides no explanation for any of the 9 parameters. Users cannot understand the purpose of optional fields like color_depth, horizontal_resolution, etc., leading to confusion.

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 ('Sign') and resource ('document') with the method ('digital certificate'). It distinguishes from sibling tools, none of which involve signing. However, it lacks specificity about the type of signature (visible vs. invisible) and the overall process.

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 or its prerequisites. The user is not informed about document readiness, certificate installation, or alternatives like get_digital_signatures for checking existing signatures.

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