sign_contract

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

With only destructiveHint=true in annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining non-obvious behavior: it explicitly discloses that v1 returns a deep link to the HoneyBook portal rather than completing a headless signature. It also reinforces the confirmation requirement, matching the schema's 'must be true to proceed'.

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 short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the key v1 caveat immediately after. Every clause contributes to understanding the tool; the confirm sentence is slightly redundant with the schema but remains valuable as an explicit requirement.

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?

For a 3-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential return behavior (deep link), the confirmation requirement, and the vendor-contract use case. It could say more about how to handle the returned portal link, but the schema already documents origin and file_id.

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?

All three parameters (origin, confirm, file_id) have full schema descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates the confirm requirement and does not add selection, formatting, or fallback guidance beyond what the schema already provides.

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 names the exact action ('Sign a contract'), identifies the object and source ('contract you received from a vendor'), and immediately clarifies the v1 behavior ('returns a deep link ... instead of signing headlessly'). This makes it clearly distinguishable from the read/list/auth siblings such as use_magic_link and list_workspace_files.

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 states the target scenario ('contract you received from a vendor') and the mandatory guardrail ('Requires confirm:true'). It does not enumerate alternatives or explicit when-not conditions, but for a single-purpose signing tool the context is clear.

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